Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the ease of the following]Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

South Oxfordshire Water and Gas Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Petitions for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for additional Provision in the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords].

London and South Western Railway Bill [Lords].

Macclesfield Corporation Bill[Lords].

Reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

NEW WRIT

for the County of Salop (Ludlow Division), in the room of IVOR MILES WINDSOR-CLIVE (commonly called Viscount Windsor), now Earl of Plymouth, called up to the House of Peers.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

EXPORT LICENCES (COLOGNE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any pressure is being brought upon export merchants in Cologne to obtain French licences for export, although these licences arc not recognised by the German Government?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): I am not aware of any pressure being exercised on merchants, but British firms desiring to obtain facilities for export. from the occupied territory are advised as to the method of obtaining licences, and the representatives of the British Government are always ready to give them any assistance possible to obtain such licences.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are they advised to apply for licences?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, certainly.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In spite of the fact that it is against the orders of the Germans?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Certainly.

BRITISH GOODS(CUSTOMS DUTY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the disposal of the money collected by the French customs posts as duty on British goods entering the occupied area in the Ruhr has been decided upon; if so, what is the decision; and whether: His Majesty's Government has been consulted and has consented?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the remaining two parts do not, therefore, arise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have the Government made any representation on this matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: This matter is being discussed at this present moment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When is it expected that there will be some information on this very important question?

Mr. BALDWIN: Soon, I hope.

Captain W. BENN: Do not the Government recognise that we have an interest in these sums which are being exacted from our own traders?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

DYESTUFFS.

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. Laing and Company, of Wellclose Square, applied to the Dyestuffs Advisory Committee, on 17th January last, for a licence to import from Germany 2 cwt. of a- dye known as Blue De Lyon O; that permission was granted on 27th February to import 20 lbs. only; and that, on further representations from the firm, a licence was granted for an additional 36 lbs. of that dye on 7th March; whether there is any reason why the firm should be refused permission to import the balance of 1 cwt. which they still require; and whether he will take steps to prevent such unreasonable delay and consequent interference with trade in the future?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The original application was not made by the firm named, but by an importer of German dyestuffs. It subsequently appeared that the only consumer concerned were Messrs. Laing, who informed the Committee direct- that their present requirements were 56 lbs. They were allowed 20 lbs. whilst inquiries were being made as to possible British equivalents, and later the quantity was increased to the full amount required by them.

Mr. SIMPSON: Were inquiries made from the firm as to the amount of their trade and why they required so much?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: What happened was this: The firm of importers said that 2 cwt. was required by the manufacturing firm, but the manufacturing firm said that they did not require 2 cwt. but 56 1bs.

Mr. SIMPSON: Why should the Committee go behind the application and find out who the consumer was?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: In order to carry out the Act as Parliament intended.

Mr. HANNON: Are these dyestuffs not available for purchase in this country?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There are now some experiments being conducted and we shall probably know the result in a very short time.

Mr. SIMPSON: Was there any British dye that was at all like De-Lyon O and would have stood the treatment with ammonia equally well?
3. The hon. Member asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that benzoic acid, B.P., a chemical not manufactured in this country. is protected by the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act. and that that chemical is required to manufacture-sodium benzoate, a substance dutiable under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and whether, in view of the difficulty of import. which is caused by the Dyestuffs (Import. Regulation) Act in the case of benzoic acid and the consequent handicap on the manufacture of sodium benzoate, he can see his way to remove the former from the operation of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act and so to encourage the manufacture of sodium benzoate, which is regarded as a key industry?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Benzoic acid is an organic intermediate, and as such is within the scope of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act. I have no power to exempt any particular product from the operation of that Act, but licences are granted for the importation of such quantities of benzoic acid as are shown to be required for purposes other than dye-manufacture.

Mr. SIMPSON: Was it a fact that it took so long to get the licence that the importer was forced to purchase sodium benzoate from Germany rather than wait?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Obviously, I cannot tell about a particular case without. notice, but I know that the great majority of cases are dealt with in a few days.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that where it is found that a commodity has been included by mistake and is never manufactured in this country, it is impossible to get the Act amended?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. and gallant Member knows, I think, that the Dyestuffs Regulation Act prohibits the import of any dye without licence. Where the article cannot be procured in this country the licence is always given.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But there is a long delay?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No.

Mr. F. GRAY: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that last year Germany imported from this country 6.50 per cent. and Switzerland 12.21 per cent. of the total cotton greys exported from this country as compared with 1.53 per cent. and 3.23 per cent., respectively, of the total exported in 1013, and that the percentage of total goods exported as prints has fallen from 17.39 per cent. in 1913 to 12.98 per cent. in 1922; and whether, in view of these facts, he will take steps to secure the early repeal of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Major ATTLEE: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused by the manner in which the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee exercises its functions; whether he is aware that the Committee withholds its consent to the importation of foreign dyestuffs by demanding samples, and asking importers for the reasons why their clients cannot meet their requirements from certain British firms; and if he will state whether the Committee in making such demands are acting under the instructions of his Department?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am unable to accept the suggestion made in the first part of the question, and, on the contrary, I am satisfied that the Committee commands the confidence of consumers generally. As regards the remainder of
the question, the Committee have thought it desirable to call for certain information to enable them to give proper consideration to applications for licences.

Major ATTLEE: How is an importer to supply a sample of a dye when he is not allowed to import it and has not it in his possession?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As this Committee is run by practical business men and contains a majority of colour users, I am perfectly satisfied that they conduct their business in a thoroughly practical way.

Major ATTLEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the first part of my question, in which I refer to the thoroughly unsatisfactory way in which this Committee exercises its functions?

Mr. GRAY: 25.
further asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the sole representative in Spain of the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, is offering for sale reparation dyestuffs; if so, can he state whether such reparation dyes are sold by the corporation to their Spanish agents at the same price as to British firms; whether they are sold on behalf of the corporation's reparation agency or whether they are sold on behalf of their business as makers of dyestuffs; whether he is prepared to order an inspection of the corporation's books to ascertain the facts; and, in the event of it being found that the corporation, who, under their agreement with the Government, are prohibited from selling these reparation dyes for their own account, are disregarding this condition of the agency, is he prepared to place the agency in other hands?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am informed by the British Dyestuffs Corporation that no reparation dyestuffs whatever have been supplied by them to their representative in Spain, whether for sale on their own account or on Government account, and that no reparation dyestuffs have been sold by them in any other way in that. country.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA BILL.

Mr. HANNON: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce the promised legislation relating to carriage of goods by sea, fol-
lowing upon the agreement which has been arrived at between trading and shippers' organisations?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: A Bill to give effect to the rules recommended by the Brussels International Conference on the subject of the carriage of goods by sea was introduced in the House of Lords yesterday.

Mr. HANNON: Would the right hon. Gentleman accelerate the Bill in every way possible, as he knows the anxiety among the trading and shipping community about it?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes; I gave an undertaking that the Bill would be introduced in another place as rapidly as possible, and that was done yesterday, as that is the most rapid way when business is congested here.

STEEL PENS (UNITED STATES TARIFF).

Mr. HANNON: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that. the tariff on British-made steel pens imported into the United States of America has recently increased by 50 per cent., and the duty now amounts to 12 cents per box: and whether, seeing that this duty in effect closes to British pen-makers a large former market, he will consider the imposition of a reciprocal tariff on American pens which are at present imported into this country duty-free?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, a differential duty on American pens would be a breach of the Convention of Commerce of 1815 beween this country and the United States of America.

Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any way by which the pen-makers of this country can be protected against this unfair competition?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not think that by question and answer I can discuss the whole tariff question.

MOTOR-CARS (IMPORTS).

Colonel NEWMAN: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the total value of motor-cars, and parts of motor-cars, that. have been
imported into this country during the current financial year; can he state the number of motor-cars that were imported: of these, how many were imported as chassis only; and how many as fully-equipped motor-cars?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is the answer contains a table of figures, I will, with the permission of my hon. and gallant Friend, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

It will not be possible to give particulars regarding imports of motor-cars into the United Kingdom in the complete year ending 31st March, 1923, until about the middle of April. I am, accordingly, giving particulars for the 12 Months ended 28th February, 1023, as follows:



Quantity and declared value of imports registered during the 12 Months ending 28th February, 1923.


Motor-cars, etc:
Number.
£


Motor touring cars (including cabs)
15,713
2,692,796


Commercial vehicles (including motor omnibuses, motor fire engines, and motor ambulances)
1,104
206,340


Chassis for motor cars
9,460
1,549,439


Other parts of motor-cars (excluding rubber tyres and tubes not imported with complete motor-cars)
Cannot be stated.
1,843,775

EN-ENEMY SHIPS (SALE).

Mr. SHINWELL: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to furnish information on the sale and price of ex-enemy and other vessels disposed of by the Ministry of Shipping, and the firms to whom such vessels were sold?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The information as to the ex-enemy reparation ships for which the hon. Member asked on 11th December is now ready and is being laid on the Table. The hon. Member now asks for corresponding information about all the other ships sold by the Ministry of Shipping, that is, the standard ships, the ships that. were partly completed at
the Armistice, and prizes, a total of over 700 ships, and the preparation of a detailed. return would involve a very considerable amount of labour and expense, which I do not think would he justified. All the accounts and papers relating to these transactions are examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman place the Papers on the Table immediately, that is, before the Recess: and, secondly, is the information asked for with regard to ships other than ex-enemy vessels being withheld because the Board of Trade., in the interests of the shipowners, do not think it desirable to give it?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir; certainly not. The return which I have said would lay on the Table will he laid—I think it is ready now--before the House rises. There is no possible suggestion that I am holding bark anything in the interests of any shipowners. I am taking this decision in the interests of the public.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it possible for Members of this House to obtain any information with regard to the transactions of the Liquidation Commission so far as vessels are concerned?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, Sir. But I think it would be utterly unreasonable that. a very large expense should he involved in giving information about accounts which have been checked in detail by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and have been before. the Public Accounts Committee.

MERCANTILE MARINE (APPRENTICES).

Colonel NEWMAN: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the need for revision of the apprentice system in the mercantile marine. both from the view of the boy himself and of his parents; that the parent has in most instances to pay a premium of up to £50 in order that the boy may serve a term of engagement of three or four years for a total remuneration of about £40; that the apprentice is supposed to be taken in hand by one of the senior officers and thoroughly grounded in seamanship and navigation;
and that in many cases this is not done, and the apprentice is kept cleaning brass and shifting coals for excessive hours and given no chance of acquiring the knowledge which will allow him to pass his examination as second mate; and whether stricter supervision can be exercised by his Department to see that such practices are put an end to, and that the apprentice receives value for the premium his parents pay?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware that complaints have been made against the system of apprenticeship in the mercantile marine on the lines indicated in the question, but I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Consett Division, on 7th March, dealing with this matter.

GAS PRICES, MITCITAM.

Mr. EDE: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a request from the Mitcham Urban District Council that an inquiry shall be held into the standard price of gas in that area; the date such request was received; whether an answer has been sent, and, if so, when; and, if an answer has not been sent, when one will be sent?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, Sir; the request, was received on the 25th January. It has been found necessary to frame rules governing the procedure in regard to applications of this nature under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920. These rules will be ready almost immediately, and as soon as they are ready the council will be given the opportunity of proceeding with their application.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE.

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the chemical commercially known as ammonium phosphate is used exclusively for the purpose of fireproofing timber by the Timber Fireproofing Company; whether, in view of this fact, ammonium phosphate. was removed from the list of chemicals protected by the Safeguarding of Industries Act; whether it has recently been ascertained that this
chemical, though commercially known and dealt in as ammonium phosphate, is, in fact, ammonium hi-phosphate, which is liable to duty under the Act; and whether, in view of the fact that, owing to the consequent enhancement in the cost of this material, the Timber Fireproofing Company may have to cease manufacture, he can see his way to removing ammonium bi-phosphate from the list of chemicals to which the Schedule of the Safeguarding of Industries Act applies?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not accept the suggestion that the material largely used for fire-proofing purposes is generally known in commerce as ammonium phosphate. The ordinary grades of ammonium phosphate were removed from the dutiable list in consequence of certain expressions of opinion by the Referee in cases under Section 1 (5) of the Act, and not for the reason suggested by the hon. Member. No complaint as to the inclusion of ammonium hi-phosphate was received within the period prescribed by the Act, and I have no power to remove from the list articles properly covered by the Schedule heading. I may add that since the passing of the Act a large British production has become available, and. the price is now substantially less than it was when there was no British manufacture.

LAMP CARBONS.

Mr. HOGGE: 22 and 24.
asked the Pre-dent of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that the vast majority of exhibitors in this country prefer to pay more for imported carbons: whether he can state what is the object in confining inquiries to the Home section of the carbon trade;
(2) what investigations arc being made by his Department in respect to the importation of carbons; why in the Circular issued by the Industry and Trade Department a special point is made of carbons and on whose request the inquiries are being made, and why the Circular is confined to a limited number of companies; and whether any of the large societies representing the users of carbons have been approached?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Inquiries are being made as to the position and progress in this country of all the industries
covered by Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, including are lamp carbons; and as part of these inquiries the views of representative users of both British and foreign carbons are being sought.

Mr. HOGGE: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he can state how much duty has been received on carbon importations for the year 1922 under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and what has been the cost of collection?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): The duty received in respect of imported are lamp carbons during the year 1922 under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act amounted to £5,170. The cost of collection cannot be stated.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 11
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, having regard to the danger of the prices of building materials being increased by trusts and combines in view of the Governments subsidy to houses, he will consider the possibility of counteracting such a move by means of a costings system and full publicity of all in ice movements and trade agreements:
(2) whether he is aware that the original rules of the Light Castings Association definitely stated that one of its objects was to raise and keep up prices against the buyers by pooling arrangements which so controlled production as to keep it just below the demand; and what steps he proposes to take to circumvent, such a policy at the present time, which would inevitably raise the price of houses that the Government propose to subsidise?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I would rfeer the hon. Member to the answers given by the Minister of Health yesterday to the hon. Members for Derby and Batley and Morley.

Mr. THOMSON: Arising out of the answer given yesterday by the Minister of Health, who stated that this Committee was making only a survey, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it
is time that. something more was done, and will he not give publicity to the findings of that survey?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is precisely in order that publicity and accurate information should be available to the public that this Committee was set up.

GAS SUPPLY, THORNLIEBANK.

Mr. NICHOL: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware that the tenants of the houses erected by the Renfrewshire County Council at Jenny Lind. Thornlie-bank, are stilt without a supply of gas although they have been in occupation for more than nine months of houses designed for the exclusive use of gas for lighting, cooking, and washing; and what steps he is prepared to take to secure a proper supply of gas?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under Secretary for Health, Scotland): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, my hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties which have been encountered in this case and of the steps which have been taken to overcome them. I have reason to anticipate that the matter will he satisfactorily adjusted at an early date.

Mr. NICHOL: As I got precisely the same answer four months ago, can my hon. and gallant Friend give the House any guarantee that this very minor dispute between his Department and the local authorities will be settled within the next five years?

Captain ELLIOT: Four months ago I did not give the answer, But I can tell the bon. Member that I am perfectly prepared to guarantee that it will not be five, years before this question is settled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will it be four? "]

RENFREW.

Mr. NICHOL: 78.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware of the fact that, owing to the large decreases in wages during the past two years, many of the tenants in the housing schemes in the burgh of Renfrew, the majority of whom are ex-service men, will be forced to vacate their houses on account of the high rentals
insisted upon by the Scottish Board A Health; and if he is prepared to fix the rentals for the coming year on the scale suggested by the Renfrew Town Council Housing Committee?

Captain ELLIOT: Representations on the lines stated have been made by the town council to the Scottish Board of Health. Having regard to the rules laid down in the Financial Assistance to Local Authorities Regulations for the determination of rents, the Board are not prepared to agree to any reduction on the rents fixed by the Rents Tribunal or on the, other rents approved by the Board on the basis of the rents fixed by the tribunal. If the town council are dissatisfied with the Board's dicision it is open to them to appeal against it to the tribunal.

STORNOWAY.

Mr. MACNEILL WEIR: 79.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that. a number of men who are unable to obtain accommodation in Stornoway for themselves and their families, and who were not put in possession of small holdings, have, since the summer of 1921, been occupying, with their families, huts erected by them on the barren moorlands a few miles from the town; that the said moorland is now claimed to be part of the common grazings, and that the corner of it taken up by the huts is of little or no value, and had not been used by the adjacent. crofters: that legal proceedings have been taken in the local Sheriff Court for the removal, or ejection, or eviction of these men and their families from the said huts, although no other shelter is available for them; whether the company that claims to own the Lews, and of which Lord Leverhulme is chief director, is a party to these proceedings: whether the Board of Agriculture has power to acquire part of this moorland as sites for houses: whether the Board has been approached on the subject: and whether it intends to use its powers in time to provide for the occupants of the huts above referred to?

Captain ELLIOT: My Noble Friend is informed that land at Marybank on the Coulregein Common grazings was occupied in 1921 in the manner stated in the first part of the question. He understands that legal proceedings in the
Sheriff Court have been taken by the proprietors. The Board of Agriculture have certain powers under Section 14 of the Land Settlement Act, 1919, to apply to the Land Court for the apportionment of common grazing land as sites for houses. The Board have been approached on the subject, and have found that the land on which the huts stand is unsuitable for housing sites owing to insufficient drainage. The Board are making inquiry as to the possibility of suitable alternative ground being available.

FARM WORKERS, SCOTTAND.

Mr. FALCONER: 84.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health how many houses have been provided for farm workers in Scotland, either by local authorities under The Housing and Town Planning (Scotland) Act. 1919, or under the private builders' subsidy scheme?

Captain ELLIOT: I regret that I am unable to give the information asked for by the hon. Member. Under The Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919, a number of houses have been built in rural areas with State assistance under schemes prepared by Scottish local authorities, but these schemes have reference to the housing of the working classes generally and do not distinguish between the different occupations of workers for whom the houses were erected. As I stated in reply to the question addressed to me by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife on 20th March, houses have been provided for farm workers under the private builders' subsidy scheme, but information as to the number is not available.

Mr. FALCONER: Will my hon. and gallant Friend inform me whether any buildings have been provided for farm-workers in Scotland under any other Acts?

Captain ELLIOT: Oh, yes; buildings have certainly been provided for farm workers, as I know from my own knowledge.

SEA-WALL DEFENCE (HOLME CULTRAM).

Mr. COL.LISON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is
aware of the fact that the Holme Cultram Urban Council of Cumberland are compelled to impose a rate of 1s. 1.d annually for sea-wall defence, and whether, having regard to the fact that this is a national service, he will consider the question of making it a national charge?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I had not previously heard of the rate referred to in the question. The general question was fully considered by a Royal Coin-mission which reported in 1911 very definitely against placing the burden on the Exchequer, pointing out that such a course might easily lead to an enormous expenditure. from public funds, and I ant not prepared to reopen the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 17.
asked the President, of the Board of Trade what was the value of the imports and exports of Mesopotamia for the years 1920 and 1921, exclusive of military and railway goods; and what was the proportion of that trade handled by British subjects, British banking, shipping. and insurance companies?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer contains a number of figures, and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The aggregate values of the imports into and exports front Iraq, exclusive of stores imported by the military authorities or the Government., were as follows:

1920.
1921.



Rupees.
Rupees.


Imports
232,750,215
205,639,235


Exports
95,347,768
98,347,912

In addition, bullion and specie to the value of 8,459,389 rupees in 1920 and 74,334,555 rupees in 1921 were exported.

I am unable to furnish information regarding the classes or nationalities of the agents engaged in conducting this trade.

WOOL (GOVERNMENT STOCKS).

Captain THORPE: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what quan-
tity of wool, if any, is being held under the control of the Government; and is it proposed to realise such stocks at once or to hold indefinitely?

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the, quantity of wool belonging to His Majesty's (government still in the hands of the British-Australian Wool Realisation Association or its successor, and what is the estimated value of such wool; is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to realise at market prices; or do they intend to hold it with a view of realising at higher prices?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The total quantity of wool now belonging to His Majesty's Government amounts to approximately 520,000 bales, the present market value of which is estimated at £10,500,000. It is proposed to continue the present policy of realising the wool systematically in regular monthly instalments, finishing in February, 1924.

WA R CHARGES (VALIDITY) BILL.

Mr. FALCONER: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange to have a memorandum published setting forth particulars regarding the claims against the Government to which the War Charges (Validity) Bill is intended to apply?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, Sir, I shall be glad to have a memorandum prepared and published.

ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS (FISHINGI INDUSTRY).

Colonel Sir C. BURN: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when there is any likelihood of compensation being received by those fishermen whose boats where sunk by enemy action during the great War; and is he aware that great distress prevails at Brixham, which is dependent on the fishing industry, and that claims have been sent in to the Reparation Department without even an acknowledgment being received by the senders?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer is rather long, and, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Until recently, the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action have been engaged in consideration of claims iii respect of loss of life, injury to health, maltreatment during internment, and loss of personal effects at sea, in respect of which their first Report has recently been published. The Commission are now proceeding with the consideration of claims in respect of loss of, or damage to, property. including claims in respect of fishing boats. The property claims are very numerous and complex, and their investigation must take some further time. It will not be possible to make any payments of compensation in respect of property until the Commission have presented their report upon them. I understand that some distress exists at Brixham. Since the publication of the first Report of the Commission, the Reparation Claims Department. has been receiving as many as 1,000 letters a day from claimants, and the staff of that Department have found it impossible to deal promptly with all of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

LONG-SERVICE PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).

Sir THOMAS HENDERSON: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that great hardship is caused to widows of long-service Army pensioners whose husbands elected to receive their pensions on discharge in periodic payments rather than in a lump sum, and died within a short period leaving their families without. means of support; and whether, in view of these circumstances, in order to tide them over a difficult period, he will agree to pay to the widows of men who die within 12 months of their discharge a reasonable percentage of the amount which the men would have received bad they elected to take a lump sum?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that a soldier who is entitled on discharge to a long service pension can elect to receive a lump sum in lieu thereof. In certain circumstances permission may be granted to a pensioner to commute a certain portion of his pension, subject to his passing a satisfactory medical examination, but
this could not be held to entitle the widow of a pensioner to claim a lump sum after the death of her husband for a pension which, had he lived, might have been commuted.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL (ACCIDENT COMPENSATION).

Mr. W. THORNE: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Mr. George Stevens, who was working at the Woolwich Arsenal, met with a serious accident on 25th July, 1921; that he was receiving £3 14s. per week until 28th November, 1921; and that his compensation was reduced down to 8s. 5d. per week; and, seeing that this is a violation of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as the man should receive at least £1 15s. in accordance with the Act, will he take action in the matter?

Mr. GWYNNE: I am inquiring into this case, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

OFFICERS' TRAINING (HALDANE COMMITTEE).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will give the names of the members of Lord Haldane's Committee considering the question of the entry and early training of officers for the Army; what the terms of reference to this Committee are and will the Government, before giving effect to any of its recommendations, afford the House of Commons an opportunity of considering the Report of the Haldane Committee as a whole?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the list of members in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The terms of references are:
 To inquire into the system of entering officers for the combatant branches of the Army and their early training, and to consider how greater economy or efficiency might be obtained.
With regard to the last part of the question, my Noble Friend will be prepared, when he has received the Committee's Report, to consider the question of its publication.

Mr. SAMUEL: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when the Report will be published?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I have no information.

Following is the list of tilt: Committee:

Chairman.

Right Hon. the Viscount Haldane., K.T., O.M.

Members,

Major-General Sir W. Hastings-Anderson.*

Major A. Boyd-Carpenter, M.P.*

Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Campion, D.S.O., J. P., M.P.

Lieut.-General Sir J. P. du Cane. K.C.B. (Master-General of the Ordnance). Major-General C. F. Romer, C.B., C.M.G. (Director of Staff Duties).

Mr Will Spens, C.B.E., M.A.

Secretary.

M. A. R. McBain, O.B.E.

*Sir W. Hastings-Anderson ceased to be a member on appointment as Major-General on the Staff at Constantinople, and Major Boyd-Carpenter also relinquished his membership on appointment as Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

FIELD PUNISHMENT No. 1 (ABOLITION).

Lieut.- Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to take any steps to amend the rules of field punishment so as to render it no longer permissible to inflict what is known as Field Punishment No. 1?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Yes, Sir; the Army Council after careful consideration have decided to abolish Field Punishment No. 1, and steps will be taken to lay the necessary amended rules on the Table of the House. in due. course.

MEAT SUPPLY.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, with a view to supplying the British Army with home-produced meat., he will consider the practicability of instituting a system of slaughter under Army directions, seeing that this would save the expenses of the middleman and thus reduce the cost of British meat to that now paid?

Mr. GWYNNE: The comparative cost of purchasing dead meat, and of purchasing cattle for slaughter in Army abattoirs, was investigated some years ago, and it
was found that the latter plan, which, in any case, would only be administratively practicable at a few large stations, was the more costly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

CLOTHING.

Major HAY: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War, in view of the facts that on the reforming of the Territorial Army men were allowed to enlist for periods of less than four years, that, clothing issued to the Territorial Army can only be replaced in four-year cycles, and that recruits who enlist in the place of men time-expired under four years from enlistment have had to take over part-worn clothing from their predecessors, and of the effect on recruiting of requiring a keen young recruit to use some other mans part-worn pantaloons or trousers and boots, if he will authorise additional issues of the above-named articles, in a new condition, in order that they may be issued to recruits?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Clothing is provided free initially by the War Office at the rate of two suits for each man added to the strength, up to the limit of the establishment in each county; and its upkeep and replacement is provided for in the shape of cash grants for each man. calculated on a four years' life of the garments, out of which grant the Association purchases from Army Store as and when required. There is no replacement at fixed intervals. Apart from the special enlistments mentioned in the question, numbers of men have always left the Force with more or less than four years' service, and the practice of reissuing clothing which after being worn has been properly cleaned and reconditioned has been general. It is not proposed to interfere with the discretion of associations in this matter, or to authorise additional issues.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

BRITISH TROOPS.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any British troops are at present stationed in Ireland; and, if so, in what numbers and for what purpose?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: There are about 5,500 troops in Ireland at present. The purpose for which they are retained is, as in Great Britain, to make use of the military accommodation available and to discharge appropriate military functions.

Mr. McENTEE: Can the hon. and gallant. Gentleman inform us when it is proposed to withdraw all troops from Ireland?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It was never proposed to withdraw all troops from Ireland.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Are there any troops there other than those in Northern Ireland?

Lieut-Colonel GUINNESS: We have also garrisons at Berehaven, Lough Swilly and Queenstown.

Major ATTLEE: What arc the "appropriate functions "of British troops in Ireland?

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it the custom of the Government to maintain British troops in British Dominions?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Ulster is not a British Dominion.

WINES AND SPIRITS DUTIES.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to allow dutiable goods such as old wines and spirits, on which duty has already been paid before the Customs' barrier was set up, to be admitted to this country or to Northern Ireland without a further duty if a certificate was obtained from a magistrate that such goods had already paid duty once?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee) on the 20th March. There is no power in law to exempt these goods from import duty if they arrive in Great Britain or Northern Ireland from the Irish Free State after midnight on the 31st March.

LAND STOCK.

Colonel NEWMAN: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an estimate of the amount of money
to be found this year by the British taxpayer to meet the interest on the various classes of Irish land stock which was formerly met by the annuities paid by those who had purchased their farms under various Land Acts, but which annuities, under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, were handed over as a free gift to the Governments of Northern and Southern Ireland; and does this estimate include the interest on the moneys advanced to Irish local authorities for the erection of labourers' cottages?

Mr. BALDWIN: Under Section 26 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, an amount estimated at £658,000 in 1923–24 is payable from the British Exchequer to the Irish Land Purchase Fund in respect of the land purchase annuities payable in respect of land situate in Northern Ireland which are now retained by the Government of Northern Ireland under that section. This amount includes the amount of the annuities pay-al- le under the Labourers Act. As regards the Free State, these arrangements were repealed by Section 1 of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1922, and the amount of the annuities payable in respect of land situate in the Free State will still be applicable to meet the interest charges on Irish Land Stock.

DEPORTEES.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 92.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make inquiries from the authorities of the Irish Free State as to whether Mr. Gilbert Francis Barrington, a British subject whose home is in 90, Mowbray Road, South Shields, who was arrested on 26th February in Ireland and has been lying since in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, without trial, can be allowed to see a solicitor and his brother, who have so far been refused access to him?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I regret that I am not yet in a position to reply to this question. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member will put it down again for Thursday.

Mr. PRINGLE: 105.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received from the deportees in Mountjoy Prison a statement of their case and a request that
they be put on trial on a definite charge; and whether he will read their statement to the House and indicate what reply he has made?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): I would refer to the reply which I gave yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for Battersea North (Mr. Saklatvala).

Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the widespread dissatisfaction on this matter in the country, will the right hon. Gentleman give hon. Members an opportunity to visit these internees whenever they desire?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already answered that question. I am not aware of widespread dissatisfaction in the country.

Mr. SHINWELL: If the right hon. Gentleman will take the assurance that I give him that there is dissatisfaction, will he give permission of the kind I have indicated?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, I cannot do that.

Mr. J. JONES: When are we going to get answers to the letters we have sent to the right hon. Gentleman regarding the case of British deportees who have been sent to Ireland without trial Are they going to be kept in internment camps until after Easter?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not now arise.

NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.

Sir W. DAVISON: 41.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will take steps to secure the reappointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the finances and management of the Navy and Army Canteen Board which was set up in the last Parliament?

Mr. HUGH MORRISON: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Government will reappoint a Select Committee to inquire into the management and finance of the Navy and Army Canteen Board which was set up by the last Parliament?

Mr. GWYNNE: My Noble Friend agrees to the re-appointment of a Select Committee with the same terms of reference as were given to the Committee set up by the late Parliament, and I will take steps accordingly.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION (RIDDRIE).

Mr. HARDIE: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that the nearest school to the district of Riddrie is Haghill,1.milles distant from the furthest point of the new houses: that nearly 500 children arc at present attending various schools; that application by the parents to the local authority has been turned down; and will he take steps to have a school built immediately to meet the needs of a growing district?

Captain ELLIOT: The Department understand that the question of accommodation in this district is receiving careful attention from the Glasgow Education Authority.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that it is not the local authority which inspects the schools but that the Department here sends out the inspectors?

Captain ELLIOT: There is another question on the Paper relating to this point.

WHALING LICENCES.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether the Secretary for Scotland consulted the Fishery Board for Scotland before deciding not to exercise his powers of cancellation of whaling licences under The Whale Fisheries (Scotland) (Amendment) Act, 1922?

Captain ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. Before reaching his decision my Noble Friend communicated with the Fishery Board and considered all the information which the Board were able to furnish.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Are we to understand from that answer that the Secretary for Scotland follows the advice of the Board?

Captain ELLIOT: The Secretary for Scotland considers the information which
is given to him by the Board, and subsequently comes to his own decision on it, as he must do.

SCHOOL BUILDINGS.

M. Mr. NICHOL: asked the-Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health the number of new schools provided since January, 1919, in Scotland, and the total amount expended thereon; if any reports have been made to the Scottish Education Department regarding the present condition of school buildings by the local authorities or by His Majesty's inspectors of schools; and if he is prepared to institute a comprehensive survey of the needs of Scotland as regards the provision of modern school buildings and their equipment?

Captain ELLIOT: The number of new schools provided since January, 1919, in Scotland is 23, and the total amount expended thereon was £288,407. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. I would refer the hon. Member to the general Reports of His Majesty's chief inspectors, which are published annually. In reply to the last part of the question, I am asked by my Noble Friend to point out that the duty of taking stock of the needs of each education area falls upon its education authority. The Department are in close touch with the education authorities in this matter, and the present time is not thought to be opportune for a more comprehensive survey.

Mr. NICHOL: Would it not be possible for the Department to collate the returns and the Reports by the local authorities, so that some general view could be had by Members of this House?

Captain ELLIOT: It would require an amount of investigation that we do not feel justified in pressing for at the moment.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not the fact that one or the education authorities in Scotland has had a building scheme to the value of half a million turned down by Government Departments, despite the fact that the buildings are required at the present time?

HERRING FISHERY.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he can state the area in
which the 35,000 crans of herring, said to have been caught last season on the west side of Shetland, were caught?

Captain ELLIOT: Practically the whole of the herrings referred to were caught in waters from 10 to 30 miles north and north-west of the Rama Stacks.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is it not a fact that a large quantity of these herrings were caught north-east of the Muckle Flugga?

Captain ELLIOT: No, Sir, not according to the chart which I have here, and which I shall be pleased to discuss afterwards with my hon. Friend. They were caught in the locality to which I have referred, namely, north-east of the Rama Stacks.

CROFTS, SKYE.

Mr. WEIR: 80.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that a number of landless men living in or near the township of Torrin, in Skye, for cultivating without sanction patches of ground on the farm of Kilbride, are being threatened with imprisonment by John Anderson and his son, Roderick Anderson, the tenants of the farms of Kilbride and Kilchrist, in the island of Skye; what legal proceedings have so far been taken by these pursuers to obtain their purpose; will the Government consent to imprisonment in the same way as has been done in the Strathlaird case; whether he is aware that both these farms extend to several hundreds of acres, a considerable part of which is fit for cultivation and is now used for sheep and game-rearing purposes; whether the present tenants hold two considerable crofts in the said township of Torrin in addition to the said two farms; whether the Secretary for Scotland will take steps to make such lands available for small holdings, having regard to the fact that the Board of Agriculture has been often appealed to within the last ten years to provide for the landless people of the district, and to take the whole or part of the farms above-mentioned for small holdings?

Captain ELLIOT: My Noble Friend understands that Messrs. John and Roderick Anderson, tenants of the farms of Kilbride and Kilchrist, have applied for
and obtained final interdict against three men who took possession of part of the farm of Kilbride. The question whether imprisonment will be ordered in the event of breach of the interdict is a matter for the court to decide. The farms comprise about 1,800 acres of which 30 acres are arable. They are stocked with cattle and sheep, and some game is obtained from the ground. The present tenants also occupy one and a half crofts at Torrin. Negotiations for the formation of small holdings on Kilbride were in progress when the illegal occupation took place, but my Noble Friend is not prepared to instruct the Board of Agriculture to proceed with the negotiations while the raiders remain in occupation. There has been no improper or avoidable delay in dealing with the question of land settlement.

LAND SETTLEMENT, WESTERN ISLES.

Mr. WEIR: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he will submit to the House the correspondence that has passed between the Secretary for Scotland, the Board of Agriculture, and the representatives of the landless men regarding the various cases throughout the Western Isles in which the landless men are now being threatened with imprisonment for cultivating bits of land for which they are willing to pay fair rents?

Captain ELLIOT: My Noble Friend is not prepared to take the course suggested.

Mr. WEIR: Why?

Captain ELLIOT: It is open to anyone to publish this correspondence, but my Noble Friend does not feel that it ought to be published at the public expense.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. FALCONER: 83.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he will state how many new small holdings have been created in Scotland since the passing of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919; in how many of these cases have the tenants been settled on land which has been purchased by the Board of Agriculture; what has been the total cost of creating these holdings; and how much of it is due to the purchase of the land?

Captain ELLIOT: Under the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, the Board have settled applicants in 1,219 new holdings and 674 enlargements, of which 762 and 140 respectively were on properties acquired by the Board under Part I of the Act. I am not yet in a position to give the actual total cost of the holdings already formed, but the total estimated gross cost of the schemes in question, which on completion will have provided for the settlement of an additional 1,037 holders, is £2,309,161, including £433,420 in respect of the purchase prices of properties acquired by the Board. In addition to the latter figure, the acquisition of certain properties involves the payment of £25,137 annually over varying periods of years.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 85.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health in how many cases the tenants on holdings created by the Board of Agriculture have not had their rents finally fixed?

Captain ELLIOT: In all but 15 cases the rents of holdings created by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland have been intimated to the holders. The hon. and gallant Member is, however, aware that in certain cases the rents already fixed are to be revised by the Land Court at the request of the holders concerned, and to that extent they cannot be said to be final.

SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 86.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health the conditions upon which a pupil can claim as of right entrance to an intermediate or secondary school without payment of fees, in terms of Section 6 (1) (a) of The Education (Scotland) Act, 1918?

Captain ELLIOT: The answer can only be in the negative. The Sub-section mentioned does not define the right of the pupil. What it does is to impose an obligation upon the Education Authority. I have already had an opportunity of informing the hon. Member that, whilst my Noble Friend has no reason to believe that the obligation is not being properly discharged, he will gladly consider any evidence to the contrary with which the hon. Member is good enough to supply him.

Major WOOD: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the question I put to him before, namely, whether he considers that the education authorities in Scotland are carrying out the law as laid down in this Section?

Captain ELLIOT: I think the previous answer was to the effect that our attention had not been drawn to the case of any authority that was not carrying out the law according to this Section.

Major WOOD: Is it not the duty of Board's inspectors to draw the attention of the Department to any breaches of the law, have they done so, and have they been asked to do so?

Captain ELLIOT: It is the duty of anyone who observes a breach of the law to draw the attention of the responsible authorities to it, and I can only say we have repeatedly invited the hon. and gallant Member himself to draw our attention to any cases of breaches of the law.

Major WOOD: I have a dozen cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MALT AND HOPS.

Mr. DIXON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if, considering the inability of the Government to relieve agricultural depression, he will initiate legislation to repeal the Act of 1880, which established the free mash tub, and so encourage the larger use of malt and hops which we do produce in this country instead of rice and maize and other substitutes that we do not produce?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think my hon Friend's suggestion is practicable.

Mr. DIXON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that farmers are unable to sell their barley except at a dead loss?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think there is any desire for such legislation as my hon. Friend suggests.

WAGES.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the injury to the national interest threatened by the imminent bankruptcy of arable farmers and by the inadequate
wages paid to their workers, the Government will give fresh and favourable consideration to the recommendation of the Selborne Report that, by fixing a minimum wage for the agricultural worker and guaranteeing a fixed price to the farmer, the condition of agriculture should be made so stable that, out of its profits, the agricultural labourer would be assured a fair wage and the cultivator of the soil a fair return for his capital. energy and brains?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): The recommendation to which the hon. Member refers appears to involve the payment of a subsidy to the agricultural industry. The Prime Minister has recently stated on behalf of the Government that any such proposal must be regarded as impracticable under existing financial conditions.

DOMINIONS (TREATIES).

Captain BENN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement relative to the power of the Dominions to sign treaties without the counter-signature of the representative of the British Government?

Mr. BALDWIN: I can add nothing to the replies which have already been given in reply to questions on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

POLAND AND EASTERN GALICIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the recent decision of the Ambassadors' Conference to permit the incorporation of Eastern Galicia in the Polish State, places the responsibility for guaranteeing this arrangement upon this country; and when the reasons for this decision will be explained to Parliament?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): No guarantee accompanies the arrangement. By Article 91 of the Treaty of Saint Germain the sovereignty over Eastern Galicia was renounced by Austria in favour of the principal Allied and Associated Powers whose responsibility it was to determine the future
status of the territory. This responsibility has now been liquidated by the Allied Powers in the only practical manner consistent with the difficulties which surround the problem.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we know whether any papers will be laid on the Table, or any explanation given of this extraordinary decision?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot answer that question at the present moment. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would put a question to the Prime Minister or to myself later on.

LAUSANNE CONFERENCE (REPORT).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the official Report on the Lausanne Conference (Turkey, No. 1, 1923, Cmd. 1814) costs £1 10s., which places the Report beyond the reach of most of the persons desirous of reading it, he will endeavour to bring about a substantial reduction of the price?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The Report consists of 869 pages of letterpress and a map and was priced according to the usual scale for Parliamentary papers, which is calculated to represent the cost price of printing and publishing on the average. I doubt whether any reduction in price, such as I could contemplate, would have the effect. of materially increasing the number of conies sold, and the result would therefore be to increase the loss falling to be made good by the taxpayer.

Mr. BUXTON: Will the hon. and gallant. Gentleman reconsider his decision. in view of the fact that the voluminous Blue Book on the Versailles Conference cost. only £1?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that this sum includes the cost of all the free distributed copies to Government Departments and Members of this House, and is it quite fair to the public?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: It may or may not be quite fair to the public, but I can tell the hon. and gallant Member that only 310 copies have been sold, and there are more available for those who are interested in the matter. It is the general
principle of the cost that is involved, and I could not consider modifying the cost and throwing an extra burden on the taxpayers.

Mr. SHORT: When was the scale to which the hon. and gallant Member refers last, revised?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I could not say without notice.

Mr. RILEY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman see his way to reduce the price to hon. Members, and will he see. that an additional supply of copies is placed in the Library?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Hon. Members get them free.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET.

SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the desirability of reducing the unfunded debt and raising funds to pay the American indebtedness, he will remove the limitations of amount of investment in war savings certificates and permit unlimited investment, arranging the rate of interest to meet the popularity of the security?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on this subject on the 5th December last to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, of which I am sending him a copy. I would only add that savings certificates are themselves unfunded debt.

INTEREST.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of interest included in the various Estimates of this year's expenditure, and also a comparison of the actual amounts paid, showing the actual expenditure on interest as against Estimate for the year?

Mr. BALDWIN: must ask my hon. Friend to await the Budget statement.

MINERAL WATERS DUTIES.

Mr. CAIRNS: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, owing to the heavy taxes on the mineral water trade, 500 firms and over have been closed, throwing some thousands of
workpeople out of work, and ruining the manufacturers in this industry; and if he will take off part of the duty?

Mr. BALDWIN: As stated in my reply of the 19th February, to the hon. Member for the Kingswinford Division (Mr. Sitch). representations on the matter have already been received, and arc now being given careful consideration.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (INCOME TAX).

Mr. HANNON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on income Tax, 1019, that all income derived by co-operative societies from invested funds should be subject to taxation, irrespective of the particular mode of investment; and if he can state the estimated loss to the revenue during the present financial year resulting from the exemption indicated?

Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. Friend will not expect me, in a matter of this kind, to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. HANNON: I hope my right hon. Friend will give careful consideration to this question.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member who put this question down is probably a to-operative organiser?

LAND VALUATION.

Mr. McLAREN: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the valuations of land made under the 1909£10 Finance Act are completed have these valuations been so revised as to bring them up to date; and, if so, what are the main purposes for which they are used?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to Section 57 (1) of the Finance Act, 1920, and to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) when introducing the Budget of that year. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that statement.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. LANSBURY: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will
inform the House how many persons receiving old age pensions during the three years ending 28th February, 1923, have been prosecuted for obtaining pensions under false pretences; in how many cases have such persons escaped prosecution on condition that they made restitution; and how many have had their pensions reduced as a means of ensuring repayment of the sums wrongfully obtained?

Mr. BALDWIN: During the three calendar years, 1920, 1921 and 1922, 477 persons were prosecuted in Great Britain, under Section 9 (1) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, for having knowingly made false statements or false representations for the purpose of obtaining or continuing, either for themselves or for other persons, old age pensions, to which they were not entitled. The liability to prosecution under this Sub-section is distinct from the liability, under other provisions of the law, to repay the amount overpaid; and a person does not escape prosecution on condition of making repayment. Particulars are not available of the number of cases in which payment of old age pension has been withheld in order to effect recovery of a previous overpayment.

Mr. McENTEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of those prosecutions resulted in conviction?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid not, without notice.

Mr. BRIANT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a reduction of old age pensions simply means that the pensioners have to be provided with outdoor relief to provide for decreased income?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost to provide all men over the age of 60 years with a pension of 20s. per week, and the estimated cost of providing a pension of 20s. per week for all men and women over 60 years of age.

Mr. BALDWIN: Subject to the more exact estimates that will be possible when the full Census particulars are available, the answer to the first part of the question may be put at approximately £90,000,000, and to the second part at approximately £200,000,000.

Mr. STURROCK: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that much uncertainty exists among old age pensioners in Scotland as to the nature of their private means which they are called upon to declare as disqualifying them from full pension; that in some cases local officers press applicants to declare such sums as they receive in private charity; and whether the House will have an opportunity, on the Scottish Estimates or otherwise, of discussing the methods adopted by officials to extract information on these points from old people who have reached pensionable age?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: In calculating means for old age pension purposes, the law requires all items of means, of whatever nature and from whatever source received, to be taken into account. If the hon. Member has in mind any case or cases in which it is considered that the old age pension officer has exceeded his duty, and will send me particulars, I will have inquiry made.

Mr. STURROCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been many cases of what appears to be a form of inquisition exercised at the expense of the old people, and will he carefully consider the Regulations under which these officers work, since some of them attempt to make old age pensioners acknowledge purely charitable gifts as an addition to. their means of subsistence?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is part. of the hon. Member's original question.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY FARES).

Mr. COLLISON: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated cost of providing Members of Parliament with free railway passes to their constituencies?

Mr. BALDWIN: On the basis of the week-end fares at present in operation, which are available from Friday (by trains leaving London at and after 5 p.m.) until Monday, it is estimated that the cost of free travel for Members of Parliament by railway or steamship between London and their constituencies would be approximately £60,000 if the House sat 40 weeks in the year.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-CABINET MINISTERS' PENSIONS.

Loan GEORGE HAMILTON.

Mr. LANSBURY: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he received the communication from Lord George Hamilton resigning his claim to a pension as from April next; and will he inform the House whether the Noble Lord on any previous occasion informed either him or his predecessors as to his means?

Mr. BALDWIN: The communication w as received on 10th March. Since the necessary declaration made upon the original grant of his pension Lord George Hamilton has not, so far as I am aware, furnished any information as to his means, nor has he been asked to do so. As the hon. Member is aware from previous answers, it has not been the practice to require subsequent declarations of means after the award of a pension.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing in a short Bill in order to compel persons who receive pensions on the plea that they are in a condition of poverty periodically to make statements as to their means, in exactly the same manner as in the case of old age pensioners with 10s. a week, and, if found guilty, to be treated in the same manner as a poor person?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think the whole practice deserves consideration.

Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the fact that this gentleman received a pension on account of distress, or alleged distress, will the right hon. Gentleman now institute proceedings for recovery of the amounts received?

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the amount of money the Noble Lord has received during the time he has been a pensioner?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: £44,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (WOMEN).

Mr. HAYDAY: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that "Live Wire," a journal which persistently
attacks the trade union women temporary civil servants, is advertised on the notice boards of Government Departments, such advertisement being given one the official notice boards of the Pensions Issue Office even for the February issue, which included an attack on a trade union woman divisional superintendent, the length and character of her public service, which, under threat of a libel action, both printer and editor had to withdraw subsequently; that recent appeals for funds to support the turning out of the women were circulated round all Departments, including the women staff concerned; and that this circular included a false statement to the effect that there were still over 3,000 pin-money women employed in the Pensions Ministry, whereas every woman still employed there has had her circumstances gone into and, if appealing against dismissal, verified by a justice of the peace or other responsible citizen; and whether he will undertake that in future no official notice boards shall be used to advertise journals including libellous attacks on women employés, and that circulars attacking the latter shall not be distributed in the offices during office hours?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: My attention would not normally be drawn to questions of the kind referred to by the hon. Member, which would appear to raise disciplinary issues which would more properly be dealt with by the heads of the Departments concerned. I am satisfied that, should circumstances demand it, action would be taken to prevent any abuse of the facilities ordinarily allowed to staff associations for displaying, subject to Departmental approval, notices regarding association activities, and I am not prepared to suggest that existing Departmental practice in this matter should be modified.

SUPER-TAX CLAIM (MRS. G. M. GARDNER).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, having regard to the fact that the Inland Revenue authorities have refused to refund Mrs. G. M. Gardner the sum of £764 8s which was paid by her in error, although the said sum was
not legally payable, the Special Commissioners of Income Tax are now demanding that Mrs. Gardner should pay Super-tax in respect of the income on which the above payment was made by mistake, notwithstanding the fact that she has already paid Super-tax on the full amount for which she was legally liable had the above-mentioned mistake as to her legal liability not been made; and whether, under the above circumstances, he will direct the Special Commissioners not to press their claim for Super-tax, as they themselves had in the first instance agreed to do, realising that Mrs. Gardner's payment of Income Tax had been made by reason of a bonâ-fidemistake and that, apart from this mistake, the said tax could not have been legally claimed by the Inland Revenue?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware of the facts of this case, and would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave to his question of the 22nd and 27th February. My hon. Friend is, I think, under a misapprehension in suggesting that the Special Commissioners of Income Tax had agreed to waive the claim to Super-tax. The matter is, I understand, the subject of appeal to those Commissioners, and my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is, therefore, one in which any intervention on my part would be improper.

Sir W. DAVISON: Do I understand that this lady can appeal against being assessed for Super-tax as well as Income Tax for which 6he will not be legally liable?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I am not certain on that point, without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Major BARNETT: 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether ex-service men who joined up after compulsory service had been introduced, and served either at home or overseas but not in the firing line, are being retained in the Civil Service in preference to women who lost their bread winners in the war before Conscription came into force, and to other women who are striving to supplement the pensions of disabled relatives?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: In accordance with the recommendations of the Lytton Committee, and in pursuance of the pledges given by the Government, preference for temporary employment in Government Departments is given to all ex-service personnel over non-service personnel. The retention of the latter on grounds of hardship alone is in present circumstances incompatible with this policy. As between ex-service men, preference is given to those who have served overseas or are disabled.

Major BARNETT: Does that mean that a conscript who has had no service at the front is preferred to a woman clerk, even if she comes within the category of "hardship cases "?

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: (by Private Notice)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the numerous allegations that the Government have failed adequately to carry out the recommendations of the Lytton Committee on the subject of the extended employment of ex-service men in the Civil Service, he will be willing to appoint a special Committee of Inquiry to look into the matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Government, after careful consideration. have decided to set up a Committee to inquire into the action taken throughout the Civil Service in consequence of the Report of the Committee set up in July. 1920, under the Chairmanship of the Earl of Lytton, to consider the arrangements for the appointment of ex-service men to posts in the Civil Service, whether permanent or temporary, and to report to what extent practical effect has been given to the Committee's recommendations in the various Government Departments. The composition of the Committee has not yet been settled, but I propose that it should consist of seven or eight members drawn mainly from this House, and that it should include one or more women.

KENYA COLONY (VOI-TAV ETA RAILWAY).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 87.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Voi-Taveta
railway line in Kenya is to be pulled up or sold at a break-up price; that this line affords a valuable outlet for the produce of the Kilimanjaro region through the port of Kilindini; that the Mombasa Chamber of Commerce is averse to its removal; and whether there is any intention to relay the line elsewhere?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The line referred to is a portion of a short railway, part of which is in Tanganyika Territory, laid down for purely military purposes during the War. It is now in a derelict condition, and if retained would require extensive realignment The Kilimanjaro district in Tanganyika Territory is served by the existing railway to the port of Tanga, about the same distance as Mombasa. The military line is, therefore, not a necessity from a commercial point of view, and the cost of its reconstruction and maintenance would be very considerable. It has been decided to utilise the rails for necessary improvements on the railway to Tanga. The views of the Mombasa Chamber of Commerce have not been communicated to the Colonial Office, but I may say that the Tanga Chamber is strongly in favour of the decision which has been taken in the matter after long and careful consideration.

EXECUTIONS, BRITISH CALABAR.

Mr. WEBB: 88.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that at Oron, in British Calabar, on one occasion, 24 men and two women were publicly hanged in the market place on a single morning, one after another, the proceedings lasting five hours; at what date these executions took place, and were they carried out after judicial trial and sentence, and after confirmation and specific sanction by the highest authority; and whether, in view of the fact that the practice of public executions by the former King of Benin was suppressed by British authority, he can state on what grounds has this expedient for deterrence been revived in a British territory?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no information regarding the executions to which the hon. Member refers. They do not appear to have taken place in recent years, so far as the records of the Colonial Office show; but, if the hon. Member will
furnish me with such information as is in his possession, I will have further inquiries made.

Mr. WEBB: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are at least two British eye-witnesses who testify to these facts, one of whom was engaged to design and erect the scaffold, that photographs were taken, some of which are in this country, and that the event took place during the term of office of the hon. Gentleman's predecessor?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. Member will communicate those facts and photographs to me, I shall be much obliged. It is the first we have heard of it.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. MUIR: 89.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of migrants in the following categories who left England, Scotland and Wales, respectively, for Canada during the years 1920, 1921 and 1922, families, married men without their families, single men, single women, youths of both sexes between 18 and 21 years of age, and juveniles, if any?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As the information for which the hon. Member asks me is not available in this country, the Canadian Government were asked by cable if they could supply it. I have to-day received a telegram in reply, in which, I regret to say, it is stated that the particulars required are not obtainable.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

LOAN.

Mr. BECKER: 90.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give any information as to when the Palestine Government loan will be floated; when he expects to receive back the £1,365,000 which has been loaned to the Palestine Government by the Crown Agents; and, as Palestine is not a colony but a mandatory country, why was such a payment ever made?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Palestine loan will be floated when the Secretary of State is advised that a favourable opportunity has arisen, and repayment will be made to the Crown Agents of the
sums advanced by them as soon as loan funds are available. These advances were made because the financial circumstances of Palestine appeared to require and to justify them. I do not see how the mandatory status of Palestine affects the question.

Mr. BECKER: When this loan is floated some little time hence, will the British Government have to guarantee the principal and interest?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir; it will be treated like most Colonial loans, in the case of which the British Government does not guarantee the principal and interest.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: Has the Palestine Government power to issue a loan simply on the request of the League of Nations?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir, certainly not. The League of Nations does not come in. The Secretary of State authorises the issue of loans for territories for which we are responsible and which we govern.

Major BURNIE: Will the Jewish issuing houses be given the first chance in regard to this loan?

MANDATE (RATIFICATION).

Mr. BECKER: 91.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Palestine Mandate will not be ratified by the British Parliament; and whether, seeing that the League of Nations' action of July last in approving the Mandate should not be sufficient to bind this country to indefinite expense, this House will in future be informed of any action that the League of Nations is taking that will lead to more expenditure for this country, so that a strong protest may be sent from the British Parliament?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The first part of the question raises a constitutional issue of some importance. A Mandate is not in the nature of a Treaty between Governments which requires ratification by the respective heads of the States concerned. No question arises of ratification in a technical sense. I would remind the hon. Member that the House was given definite opportunity in the Debate of the 4th July last, of discussing the question in its widest aspects. The
result was a clear pronouncement in favour of the policy of the Government. With regard to the last part of the question, the hon. Member may rest assured that the British representative on the Council of the League of Nations will receive no instructions which the Government are not prepared to defend in this House.

Mr. PETO: As we now have a new House of Commons, can a fresh opportunity be given of discussing this question?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: An opportunity will arise when the Middle Eastern Estimates for the new year come on, and the House can decide whether there is to be a change of policy on that or on the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: On what authority is the hon. Gentleman speaking when he says that it is not necessary that the Mandate should be ratified by the House of Commons?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have consulted the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the authorities of the Foreign Office, and they framed the answer to this part of the question.

CONSTITUTION.

Captain FOXCROFT: 97.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the opposition of the majority of the electors of Palestine to the undemocratic character of the present constitution of that country, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of bringing the said constitution more into conformity with the wishes of the people?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Baronet the Member for Darwen (Sir F. Sanderson) on the 15th March. I have nothing to add to the statement that I then made.

Captain FOXCROFT: Is an Assembly of 11 members nominated by His Majesty's Government and 12 elected members in accordance with the self-government that was promised to Palestine in 1915 and 1918?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware of the promises to which the hon. and gallant Member alludes.

JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.

Mr. PETO: 98.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether delegations from the Palestinian Arabs have been in official communication with the Colonial Office during the last 18 months; if so, whether they have expressed strong dissatisfaction as existing among the Arab population of Palestine with the policy of establishing in their country a Jewish national home; and what steps the Government proposes to take in consequence?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: With regard to the first and second parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper published in June, 1922, as Command Paper No. 1700. The third part of the question raises matters of policy that cannot conveniently be dealt with by question and answer.

Mr. PETO: Seeing that it is only since June of last year that the wishes and desires of the vast majority of the people of Palestine—the Arab population—have become known to Members of this House, how can a White Paper published in June last have any bearing on this question?

NATIVE PRISONERS, SIERRA LEONE.

Mr. LINFIELD: 94.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the practice in the Sierra Leone Protectorate regulating the prosecution and defence of native prisoners tried before the Circuit Court on capital charges; is the practice uniformly adhered to; whether there are any rules of court or written regulations on the subject; and, if so, what are their terms?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The practice followed in the Circuit Court in the connection mentioned is, so far as the circumstances of the Protectorate allow, identical with the practice of the Supreme Court of the Colony, and is adhered to as uniformly as the varying circumstances of different cases permit. Rules of Court on the subject were made by the Judge of the Circuit Court in 1915, the terms of which are to be found in the Sierra Leone Royal Gazette of 20th February, 1915.

SLAVE TRADING, ABYSSINIA.

Dr. CHAPPLE: 96.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Foreign Office have received reports upon widespread and growing slave-trading in Abyssinia; whether the Colonial Office has also received from Colonial officials reports of a similar nature; and whether these have been, or will be, passed to the Foreign Office for transmission to the Council of the League of Nations?

Mr. McNEILL: Various kinds of domestic and agricultural serfdom exist in a legalised form through Abyssinia, but no reports have been received at the Foreign Office as to growing slave-trading. The internal affairs of Abyssinia cannot normally form the subject of reports from British Colonial officials, but the hon. Member possibly has in mind the slave raising in British territory which formerly occurred near the Abyssinian frontier. The Secretary of State for the Colonies asked for a report on this practice last year, and was informed in reply that Abyssinian raids into British territory were undertaken primarily for the capture of stock and game. In a few instances women and children had been carried off. A garrison having, however, been established on the part of the frontier affected, such raids must by now have ceased. According to reports from His Majesty's Representative at Adis Ababa, the delimitation of the frontiers has necessarily led for many years past to a decline in the slave trade. It is not considered that any useful purpose would be served by the communication of these reports to the Council of the League of Nations.

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: Is there any slave trading going on between Abyssinia and the Arabian coast?

Mr. McNEILL: There was a capture by one of His Majesty's ships in the Red Sea not very long ago. Of course any trade of that sort is subject to the very closest supervision we can give to it. That is a different matter from the one that appears in the question.

IMPERIAL PRESS CONFERENCE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTONGR IFFITHS: 19.
asked the President of the
Board of Trade whether, in view of the great impetus given to British Empire trade and settlement as a result of the first and second Imperial Press Conferences, he can inform the House when and where another conference of this kind will take place?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to reply to this question. These conferences are arranged periodically by the Empire Press Union, and, though I have no official information on the subject, I understand that it is contemplated to hold the next conference in Australia in 1925 if the necessary arrangements can be made.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: In view of the good work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Sir Harry Brittain) as the originator and organiser of these most useful conferences, will my hon. Friend endeavour to take advantage of his valuable experience or advice in any action the Government may take to further the interests of this third conference?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will most certainly bear that suggestion in mind.

POLICE (PARADE).

Mr. HAYES: 99.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a police officer who is instructed to parade at a certain time is regarded as on duty when complying with such instruction?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This is a general question to which it is not possible for me to give a reply without some indication of the particular circumstances in which the officer is instructed to parade. If the hon. Member cares to write to me and let me know the circumstances he has in his mind, I will endeavour to give him a reply.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the varying practices which obtain in the various police forces, would it not be advisable to send out some definite instructions on the matter in order that the pin pricks that occur may not recur?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will certainly consider that. I was not aware that the instructions were not definite, but I will look into the question.

HOLLOWAY PRISON (J. E. STUTTON).

Mr. HAYES: 100.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Governor of Holloway Prison informed J. E. Stutton, late of that prison staff, that. he could not place him on lighter employment until he had heard from the Prison Commissioners; whether the medical recommendation for lighter employment was ever carried out; and, if so, what was the difference between Stutton's duties before and after 10th March?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Governor informed Stutton that he would have to report the matter to the Commissioners, as it was impossible for him to find entirely light work. The medical recommendation was carried out thus: Before the 10th March Stutton had been employed on general store porter's work and evening patrol duty. After that date, he was employed as messenger on evening patrol duty, occasionally as gatekeeper and on such of the porter's work as did not. involve the heavy lifting there is in the other parts of the stores. He also had assistance. For part of the time before he was placed again on the sick list, he was employed in connection with the stocktaking.

Mr. HAYES: If I forward the right hon. Gentleman particulars and explain that he has been misinformed, will he reconsider the question?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I shall be very glad to reconsider any further particulars which are not in my possession now.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SENTENCES).

Sir C. BURN: 101.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the sentences inflicted on persons convicted of cruelty to animals; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no doubt that in some cases the sentences passed on offenders of this class are more lenient than many of us would think right. The remedy, however, seems to me to lie in the development of a proper interest and a healthy public opinion on the subject: and to that end the various unofficial
agencies interested, whose activities I welcome, can, I am sure, do much more than any Department of State.

Sir C. BURN: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a circular round to magistrates to let them know, if they do not know it already, that public opinion is very strong.?

Mr. HARDIE: In inflicting punishment. in this way shall we not be reducing ourselves to the level of the man who gives a clue] stroke to an animal?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have considered the question of a circular, but I think on the whole I prefer to leave it to public opinion. Every case differs in its conditions and circumstances, and I do not think it will be possible to draw up any circular which would be of any definite guidance to magistrates. I am sure the Debates we have had and the questions which have been asked and answered will have done a great deal towards stimulating public opinion.

MADRAS (ENGLISH CHILD ADOPTION).

Mr. BECKER: asked the Home Secretary if he will form a committee of inquiry to inquire into the case of Doris Hawker, the seven-year-old child sent to Madras, the committee also to make general inquiries as to how girls are disposed of by charitable institutions formed to take care of young girls?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have in the, first instance asked the Chief Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools to investigate by personal visit the question of the disposal of girls from the Princess Louise Home and other representative voluntary institutions.

CATHOLIC ECCLESIASTICS, MOSCOW (DEATH SENTENCES).

Mr. AMMON: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister 'whether he has any additional information respecting the sentence to death of the Archbishop of Moscow by the Bolshevist Government of Russia; and whether it is possible for the British Government to make representations on behalf of the condemned Archbishop?

Mr. McNEILL: A telegram has just been received from the British agent in Moscow confirming the report that the Archibshop and one of his priests have been sentenced to death, and stating that it is feared the sentence will be carried out within 48 hours. Mr. Hodgson has done all in his power, under repealed instructions from His Majesty's Government, to save these ecclesiastics, and I cannot see what more can he done, if the Soviet Government is determined to carry out barbarities of this nature.

Mr. AMMON: Does the hon. Gentleman think it possible that something might be done if he would cable to our representative and the representatives of the foreign Powers telling them the opinion of this country?

Mr. McNEILL: I made that inquiry myself immediately we received the telegram. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that every possible instruction and persuasion has been addressed to Moscow, not merely from our representative, but from the heads of all the religious organisations of this country and elsewhere.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to-day's papers state that the executions are to take place to-morrow?

Mr. McNEILL: That is in accordance with what I have said already, that the executions are to take place within 48 hours.

Mr. J. JONES: Could not the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold) be sent as a hostage?

Mr. NEWBOLD: Is it not a fact that no cleric condemned at any time to death has ever been put to death?

Sir W. DAVISON: Are we any longer going to tolerate in our midst a trade delegation from this barbarous Power?

Mr. PETO: In order to emphasise the opinion of this country, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the so-called Soviet trade representatives in this country that they will have to leave within 24 hours, if these executions take place?

NOTICES OF MOTION.

PROFESSIONAL WORKERS.

On this day three weeks, to call attention to the position of professional workers, and to move a Resolution.— [Mr. Robert Murray.]

CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.

On this day three weeks, to call attention to the unequal position in which the Catholic schools of the country stand, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. T. P. O'Connor.]

CRIMINAL TRIALS AND DIVORCE CASES (REPORTS).

On this day three weeks, to call attention to the publication of reports of criminal trials and divorce cases, and to move a Resolution.—[Lord Apsley.]

REGULATION OF RAILWAYS.

Mr. MIDDLETON: I beg to move,
 That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Railway Regulation Acts; and for other purposes relating thereto.
The object of the Bill will be to increase the statutory obligations now laid upon the railway companies. I propose in three short Clauses that these obligations shall be stated. The first Clause will make it compulsory on railway companies 13 provide third-class sleeping accommodation where first-class sleeping accommodation is already provided. The second Clause will provide that return tickets shall be available at any time. The third Clause will make compulsory the provision of automatic locks on railway carriage doors.
In regard to sleeping accommodation, I hope the proposal will elicit the friendly interest of hon. Members on the benches opposite, as I know it will hon. Members on this side of the House. I may be told later on that the reason why the railway companies cannot provide third-class sleepers is that they do not pay. My answer would be that they have never tried them. I believe that if we had third-class sleepers it would not only meet a great need of the travelling public, but it would save a great deal of time on the part of people who now travel. In order to carry out the business of -the country there is always a flow of travellers
between long distance points in Great Britain. If you take the 7 o'clock train from Aberdeen, it means that a traveller by that train does not reach London until 12 hours later. During the journey he cannot sleep because he is constantly awakened for his ticket, and usually he is in a crowded third-class compartment. The railway group in this House, including the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) might look with a friendly eye upon this proposal, and if they have any doubt as to the discomfort of third-class travelling, I would invite the right hon. Baronet to share the compartment of my hon. Friends from Glasgow on one of the occasions that they have to make the journey from that city to London. Though he might be kept awake by the political theories of my hon. Friends, he would discover by the time he got to London that there was a case for providing sleeping accommodation for people who have to use third-class carriages. I believe that the Great Western train from Plymouth last Monday night left Plymouth with only half the first-class sleeping accommodation occupied. There were many people in the third-class carriages who would have been glad of the opportunity to pay the sleeping fee if they had had the accommodation.
The second point relates to the immoral action of the railway companies in robbing people of their fares when they do not use their return tickets. These return tickets are issued under all kinds of conditions. If you take a short railway journey the day, the return ticket is only available for the same day. In other cases a longer time is given, but in all cases the railway companies say that in the event of that ticket not being used, they will not recognise any obligation upon them to return the fare. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not so!"] I have a copy of the Regulations here, and I am certain that that is so. That means that the railway companies are not content with keeping your money without paying any interest on it, but they will not recognise any obligation to the man who has paid his fare, to have his contract carried out. The third point., relates to the necessity of providing some security against the facility with which railway carriage doors are opened during a journey. During the last week or so we have had one or two examples of that. I am told that the reason why no auto-
matic appliance has been adopted is because the inventors cannot elicit the interest and attention of the railway companies. I am told that there is already an automatic appliance on the market which automatically locks a railway carriage door when the train is in motion, and automatically releases the door when the train stops.
These three much-needed reforms, which I propose to embody in this Bill, will mee[...], I hope, not only with a friendly reception by hon. Members, but will encourage the Government to provide facilities later on for passing the Bill as a non-contentious or a non-party Measure, because it affects all classes. It is high time that the railway companies, which have had granted to them a great monopoly by the nation, should recognise that they have obligations to discharge to the community in return for the monopoly that. the community has given to them. I hope, therefore, that the House will give me the First Reading of this Bill.

Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Railway Regulation. Acts; and for other purposes relating thereto," put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Middleton, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Wheatley, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Charleton, Mr. Warne, and Mr. Tom Smith.

REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL,

" to amend the Railway Regulation Acts, 1840 to 1893; and for other purposes relating thereto," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

SEDITIOUS TEACHING.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: I beg to move,
 That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the teaching of seditious doctrines or methods to the young; and for other purposes connected therewith.
The object of this Bill is to prevent the teaching of seditious matter to children under 16 years of age, and the dissemination of seditious literature among children. Let me make two points perfectly clear. First, no teaching or literature is interfered with by this Bill unless
it be seditious according to the common law of England, and therefore illegal; and, secondly, this Bill in no way affects propaganda among adults. The teaching and literature at which this Bill is directed is of the recognised Communist type, which aims at destroying the existing Constitution and order of things, by force if necessary, and the setting up in its place of a revolution on the Russian model. For this purpose, class-hatred, a rebel spirit, and hatred and disaffection against the King and the Constitution are preached. Love of country and patriotism are denounced. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] Yes. Private property is anathematised as robbery, and owners of property—I wonder if hon. Members will cheer this—are held up to execration as "robbers and Judas Iscariots." I am quoting their words. Revolution on the Russian model is glorified, and, to use their own language, "Russia is the one bright spot," Let me say a word or two upon the object of this movement. The movement is the outcome of the First Congress of the Young Communist International, held at Berlin in November, 1919. That Congress issued a manifesto to the proletarian youth of all nations, which was published in England and Scotland, and which advocated the subversal of the existing order of things and—these are their words—for that purpose
 the use of every instrument of revolutionary class warfare, including armed resistance.
As a result, Young Communist Leagues have, been established in Great Britain and in many other countries. Schools have been established, and much literature has been published and circulated for inculcating these doctrines. The chief organ of the Young Communist League of Great Britain is a monthly paper called the "Young Communist," which is widely issued and distributed in the schools, and in the first number of that paper of December, 1921, there is announced—to use its own words—
 an intensive campaign to inspire the communist rebel spirit in the young people of our class.
At a later stage of the Bill, I hope to give illustrations of their preaching and literature, but it is not possible to give, or at least I cannot give at the moment, the exact number of these schools in Great Britain.

Mr. W. THORNE: Name one.

Sir J. BUTCHER: My information is that there are somewhere near 100 of them.

Mr. W. THORNE: Name one anywhere.

Sir J. BUTCHER: They are very numerous, and it is worthy of note that some of the schools Which have been lately known as Socialist Sunday Schools have been captured and turned into Communist Sunday Schools. The reason given by the promoters of this movement for inculcating these doctrines among the young is significant. The reason, in their own language, is this:
 Boys and girls are not so afraid of anything of a revolutionary nature as grown-up people.
What does that mean? It means that these people are prepared and desire to trade on the experience and helplessness of youth in order to poison their minds. I say that is a base act, and it is to be noted that resolutions have been passed and petitions have been sent by almost innumerable societies in this country, representing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, calling for legislation on this subject.
The provisions of the Bill are exceedingly simple. Those who teach seditious matter to children under 16 or publish and disseminate seditious literature for the purpose of giving 'instruction to such children are guilty of an offence under the Bill, and on summary conviction are liable to a maximum fine of £50 or to a maximum term of imprisonment of three months. The Bill creates no new offence. The only change effected by the Bill is one of procedure. It provides that, instead of prosecution by indictment, people who offend under the Bill may be brought. before the magistrates and sentenced, subject, of course, to an appeal to Quarter Sessions.
There is only one other point that I wish to make. Complaints have been made from sonic quarters that this Bill is an infringement of freedom of speech. There could not be a greater misapprehension. The object of the Bill is the protection of children. The State has already recognised its obligation to protect children from long hours, from overwork, and from physical contamination and assault. That refers to their bodies. Can it be maintained that the State, which has recognised its obligation to protect the bodies of children, is not bound to protect their
souls and their minds from contamination in their early and impressionable years?

Mr. TURNER: I am reminded of two lines by a poet of the past—
 Never let your zeal outrun your charity.
The former is but human; the latter is divine.
It does seem to me that the promoter of this Bill is allowing his zeal to outrun his charity and to sonic extent also his judgment. T want to call attention also to the fact that in the petitions presented by various hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, there are 72,718 signatures, and I find that those petitions are irregular to the number of 26 in the first. case, 28 in the second, and 11 in the third, thus discounting to a considerable degree their value. It seems to me that there has been a considerable attempt to manufacture opinion in regard to these Sunday schools, and that the promotion of this Bill is largely political spite in place of political wisdom. It is not at all in the interests of the nation or in the interests of fair play between Sunday school and Sunday school. The innocent ignorance of the hon. and learned Member who introduced the Bill is shown when he says that there are about 100 schools of the character he indicates in this country. When challenged, he failed to name even one.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I was not challenged to name one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"]

Mr. TURNER: It seems to me that the Bill is a general attack upon what may he termed democratic Sunday schools, as distinct from Sunday schools connected with our churches and our chapels. This country has had a variety of Sunday schools for ages past. In the early days of last century, there were Sunday schools in which children were taught the three "R's "—reading, writing and arithmetic—and in my young days we were taught to read and to do sums and so forth at our Sunday school. T have not a single word to say against either church or chapel or any other Sunday school. Let them all come. Those Sunday schools which are teaching wrong will die, because truth is eternal, and will alone stand the test. of time. It therefore seems to me that some of the opposition has not been manufactured and engendered out of any desire to pre-
vent sedition being taught, because there has been more sedition taught in clubs and institutions connected with organisations of hon. Gentlemen opposite than has ever been taught in any Sunday school. [Interruption.] I would like to challenge any criticism upon what I am going to assert are the doctrines taught by Sunday schools on the lines indicated by my observation just now. The first is:
 Love your schoolfellows who will he your fellow-workmen in life. Love learning which is the food of the mind. Be as grateful to your teachers as to your parents. Make every day holy by good and useful deeds and kindly practices. Honour the good. Be courteous to all. Bow down to none. Do not hate or speak evil of anyone. [Interruption.] Do not be revengeful, but stand up for your rights, and resist oppression. Do not be cowardly. Be a friend to the weak and love justice. Remember that all the good things of the earth are produced by labour. [Interruption.] Whoever enjoys them without working for them is stealing the bread of the workers,"—
and do not forget that there are workers by hand and by brain. We do not exclude any of these sections by these doctrines which we are teaching now. Every person who gives service is a worker. Then it says:
Observe and think in order to discover the truth. Do not believe what is contrary to reason and never deceive yourself or others. Do not think that those who love their own country must hate and despise other nations, or wish for war, which is a remnant of barbarism. Look forward to the day —[Interruption].

Mr. COOPER RAWSON: On a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] This is extremely interesting, but it is not in the proletarian—[Interruption>].

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: It has nothing to do with the communist doctrines. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members on both sides do not observe order, I shall decline to allow the Question to be put. There is no cause for interruption, and I shall not allow the interruption of anybody.

Mr. TURNER: My final quotation is
Look forward to the day when all men and women will be free citizens of one Fatherland and live together as brothers and sisters in peace and righteousness.
I ask my hon. Friends if that is seditious teaching. [HON. MEMBERS "No!" and
" Eyewash! "] Then I wish there were more eyewash taught to-day. That does not include all the teaching. It teaches us so to guide the human soul that we shall have an understanding of the Beatitudes when they say, "Blessed are the peacemakers," and it teaches the principles of the 13th Chapter of Corinthians which are love, faith and justice. Then again the hymns include Longfellow, Morris, Shelley, Whittier, Montgomery and many others. The last observation which I have to make is in these declarations of the Sunday schools we say we desire to be just and loving to all our fellow-men and women, to work together as brothers, to be kind to every living creature, and so to help to form a new society with justice as its foundation and love as its law.

Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the teaching of seditious doctrines or methods to the young; and for other purposes connected therewith," put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Butcher, Mr. Rawlinson, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Peto, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Norton-Griffiths, Sir John Ganzoni, Brigadier-General Cockerill, Mr. Gould, and Mr. Pennefather.

SEDITIOUS TEACHING BILL,

" to prevent the teaching of seditious doctrines or methods to the young; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second thee upon Monday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
 That the Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill shall, until concluded, have precedence of all other Orders of the Day and of Notices of Motions at all Sittings for which they are set down."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Mr. HOGGE: This Motion is one to which the House is accustomed in the last week of the first Session of any Parliament, and while there are not in this case the same grounds for complaint against the Government with regard to the time of the House, as on former occasions, still there are one or two points which are worth while raising again, so as to get some information from the Government
In previous Sessions the time of private Members has frequently been taken by the Government for many more days than this Motion proposes to take. On this occasion I think, with the exception of one or two instances, for which the Government were not responsible, when the Chairman of Ways and Means took away the time of private Members, the Government themselves have not taken any of the private Members' time except Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. In previous Sessions this point has been raised. I remember that the Patronage Secretary interested himself in this particular question. The point is as to whether instead of meeting those difficulties by a purely ad hocMotion on the Paper when the occasion arises, the, time has not arrived when a Committee of the House of Commons, composed of some of the older Members, with greater experience of how the business of the House is conducted, should not be formed to try to come to some better arrangement as to the use of Government and private Members' time from Session to Session.
It raises. in addition to the questions which I have touched upon, the allocation of Government Bills to different periods of the Session. For instance, we have now reached Easter, and have not yet had introduced any of the first-class Measures for which the Government are responsible this Session. That probably means that after Whitsuntide we shall be run again into late nights. I always think that the Government meet too late in the year to cover their business before the end of March. There is, of course, a point as to whether we meet too late in the day, but that is a separate question from the allocation of business. We usually find that up to the 31st March the Government have got to surrender what amounts to two days every week, and there is considerable pressure to get through Government business by that time. The

Patronage Secretary might consider now whether the private Members' time on two days of the week should not be put between Easter and Whitsuntide, instead of between the beginning of the Session and the end of March. Then there is the question of the Recess and the various holidays in which Members are interested. Previous Prime Ministers and previous Leaders of the House have taken part in those discussions, particularly with regard to Recesses. What I want to ask is this, whether a scheme for the better allocation of time—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss that matter under this Motion. The general form does not arise here.

Mr. HOGGE: I am not putting that, Mr. Speaker. On this Motion we are entitled to discuss—

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must not remain standing in the Gangway.

Mr. HOGGE: This Motion is taking away private Members' time. I was suggesting that the way out of that difficulty was not by attacking the Standing Orders, but by setting up a Committee of the House. It is time we went into the matter to see if Government business could not be allocated in such a way as to make such Motions as this unnecessary. I should like to know if we may expect anything being done.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): The matter raised by my hon. Friend has been engaging the attention of the Patronage Secretary and he and T have had some discussions on it. We arc giving it our full consideration.

Question put,
 That the Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill shall, until concluded, have precedence of all other Orders of the Day and of Notices of Motions at all Sittings for which they are set down.

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 151.

Division No. 67.]
AYES.
[4.39 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Berry, Sir George


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Betterton, Henry B.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Blades, Sir George Rowland


Apsley, Lord
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood.
Blundell. F. N.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Ashley, Lt. Col. Wilfrid W.
Barnston, Major Harry
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Brass, Captain W.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Astor, Viscountess
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Balrd, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Briggs, Harold


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hawke, John Anthony
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Privett, F. J.


Bruford, R.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Raine, W.


Bruton, Sir James
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Buckingham, Sir H.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Butcher, Sir John George
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remnant, Sir James


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rentoul, G. S.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hopkins, John W. W.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Houfton, John Plowright
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir s.(Ecclesall)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Capt. A.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Clayton, G. C.
Hughes, Collingwood
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, G. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Russell, William (Bolton)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Colvin, Brig-General Richard Beale
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Cope, Major William
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Sandon, Lord


Cot[...]s, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shipwright, Captain D.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Lamb, J. Q.
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Crook, C. w. (East Ham, North)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Singleton, J. E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Skelton, A. N.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sparkes, H. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lorden, John William
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Dixon, C. H, (Rutland)
Lorimer, H. D.
Stanley, Lord


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lougher, L.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Ednam, Viscount
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Elliot. Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent. Canterbury)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Ellis, R. G.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Erskine-Boist, Captain C.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Titchlield, Marquess of


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Flanagan, W. H.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. ( Honiton)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Furness, G. J.
Murchison, C. K.
Wells, S. R.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nail, Major Joseph
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Garland, C. S.
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Gates, Percy
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
White. Col. G. D. (Southport)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Whitla, Sir William


Goff, Sir R. Park
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Gould, James C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Winterton, Earl


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Wise, Frederick


Greene, Lt.-Col- Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wolmer, Viscount


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Paget, T. G.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Halstead, Major D.
Penny, Frederick George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perring, William George
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Peto, Basil E.



Harrison, F. C.
Pielou, D. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Harvey, Major S. E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


NOES.


Adams D.
Batey, Joseph
Broad, F. A.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Brotherton, J.


Alexandor, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Ammon, Charles George
Bonwick, A.
Buckle, J.


Attlee, C. R.
Bowdier. W. A.
Burgess, S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)


Barnes, A.
Briant, Frank
Buxton, Charles (Accrington)




Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rose, Frank H.


Chapple, W. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Saklatvala, S.


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Salter, Dr. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sexton, James


Collison, Levi
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Shinwell, Emanuel


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lansbury, George
Simpson, J. Hope


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lawson, John James
Sinclair, Sir A.


Dunnico, H.
Leach, W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Ede. James Chuter
Lee, F.
Smith, T, (Pontefract)


Edmonds, G.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Snell, Harry


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwe[...]lty)
Linfield, F. C.
Snowden, Philip


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Evans. Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Fairbairn, R. R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Sullivan, J.


Falconer, J.
McLaren, Andrew
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Foot, Isaac
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
March, S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gosling, Harry
Maxton, James
Thornton, M.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Middleton, G.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Millar, J. D.
Turner, Ben


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mosley, Oswald
Warne, G. H.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Muir, John W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Groves, T.
Murnin, H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Webb, Sidney


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Weir, L. M.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Nichol, Robert
Welsh, J. C.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Whiteley, W.


Hardie, George D.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hayday, Arthur
Philipson, H. H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Herriotts, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Hill, A.
Riley. Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Ritson, J.



Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hogge, James Myles
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Major McKenzie and Sir A. Marshall.


Irving, Dan
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)



Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

DANGEROUS DRUGS AND POISONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Guardianship of Infants Bill [Lords],

That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely:
 That it is desirable that the Guardianship of Infants Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with
regard to the collection of rates on premises of low rateable value within the Borough of Bootle; and for other purposes." [Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for removing the limit on the liability of members of the General Reversionary and Investment Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [General Reversionary and Investment Company Bill [Lords.]

Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords],

General Reversionary and Investment Company Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SPECIAL CONSTABLES BILL,

to make perpetual, subject- to an Amendment, the Special Constables Act, 1914; to provide for the employment of special constables in connection with naval, military, and Air Force yards and stations; and to remove certain
limitations on the appointment of special constables in Scotland," presented by Mr. BRIDGEMAN; supported by Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson and the Solicitor-General: to be read a Second time upon Monday, 9th April, and to he printed. [Bill 73.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS' reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Bastardy Bill): Mr. Betterton, Captain Bowyer, Captain Viscount Curzon, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Maddocks, Mr. Shakespeare, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Turner, Mr. Warne, and Lieut.-Colonel Dalrymple White.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Merchandise Marks Bill): Mr. Broad, Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Mr. Cautley, Mr. Edmonds, Mr. William Graham, Mr. John Guest, Mr. Robert Jones, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Morris, Sir Douglas Newton, Mr. Peto, Mr. Pretyman, Colonel Sir Robert Sanders, Mr. Shepperson, and Major Steel.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment Bill and the Agricultural Holdings Acts (Amendment) Bill): Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Bonwick, Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, Mr. Lamb, Sir Robert Newman, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Samuel Pattinson, Mr. Pretyman, Colonel Sir Robert Sanders, Mr. Torn Smith, Mr. Sparkes, Mr. Weir, Mr. Tom Williams, and Mr. Murrough Wilson.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Performing Animals Bill): Captain Bowyer, Mr. Secretary Bridgeman, Colonel Sir Charles Burn, Sir John Butcher. Mr. Collins, Brigadier-General
Colvin, Sir Walter de Frece, Captain Arthur Evans, Mr. Gould, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Raymond Greene, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. March, Captain O'Grady, Mr. Frederick Roberts, and Mr. Tillett.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Lord Eustace Percy.

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERT'S further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committe A: Major Cope.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Colonel Lambert Ward.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from the Parliamentary Panel appointed in pursuance of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899: Major Birchall; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Millar.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Chairmen's Panel: Mr. Charles Roberts.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. HAYDAY: First of all I desire to say how much I regret that illness prevents the Minister of Labour being present here this afternoon. But I feel sure that his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, will, in this, I believe, his first effort of defence of comments I may offer, adequately fulfil the expectations we all have. I want to direct several criticisms towards the present management of the Ministry of Labour and its machinery, and the first one is in connection with what I assert to be the general unsuitability of the premises known as the Employment Exchanges. Later I will give two short quotations from previous Committees of Inquiry who have made certain re-commendations in this connection, and I think it must be general knowledge to all hon. Members who, when visiting their constituencies and when, perchance, they take a walk around the vicinity of Exchanges, they come to the only conclusion I feel they would be justified in arriving at, and that is that those Exchanges are totally unsuitable for their requirements. In fact, I know of one, in a large industrial centre, where signing on takes place in the day, while it is let occasionally for boxing exhibitions and bouts on Mondays, but every Saturday evening it is used as a skating rink. Property used by the Ministry of Labour as Employment Exchanges ought to be something above that of temporary occupation if they are going to give adequate attention and be able to get the full efficiency from the staffs who are employed, and I object to the Ministry of Labour setting up their Employment Exchanges or registration places in a purely temporary occupancy and then expecting that they will get satisfactory results. It has been my business also to visit places which, I am sure, had a fire occurred, would have proved veritable death-traps to those in the upper rooms of those premises. In
some cases old derelict shops have been turned into Employment Exchanges for the purposes of registration and the keeping of records, and I think, in the main, that whatever inefficiency is shown by the staffs may be directly attributable to the unsuitability of the premises in which they are called upon to carry out their work. Since we must continue with our national scheme of unemployment insurance, I feel that, instead of having these second-hand registration premises, we should establish in the principal industrial centres, not unsuitable separate units dotted about here and there, but a real suitable central building which will meet the conveniences of the staffs as well as of the signees.
Of the two brief quotations I desire to make, one is found in Command Paper 305 issued in 1919. It is the Report of an Interdepartmental Committee, over which Lord Aberconway presided. In their Report, dealing with the question of premises, the Committee say:
 The recommendation contained in the interim Report, that any steps that may be possible should be taken at once to remedy the defects in the quality of the premises and staff of the Employment Exchanges, is repeated and emphasised. Further, in connection with any future extension of the work of the Exchanges, consideration should be given to the possibility of introducing staff of suitable qualifications into the various grades.
My particular reference at this stage is to the first part of that quotation, recommending, as far back as 1919, that some immediate steps should be taken, as a matter of urgent importance, towards having more suitable premises.
Then, in 1920, a further Interdepartmental Committee was set up by my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Labour (Dr. Macnamara), over which the right hon. George Barnes presided. That Committee says this, in summarising their recommendations:
We hare received evidence from unofficial witnesses to the effect that many of these existing Employment Exchange premises are such as seriously to hamper the efficient working of the Exchanges. It was stated that many Exchange buildings are situated in unsuitable quarters of the town, and that the buildings themselves are often quite unfitted to be used as Employment Exchanges. In some cases they are even unsatisfactory from the point of view of the health of the staff employed in them. We are told, also, that in a number of cases the work of the Exchanges suffers because there is not sufficient accommodation to provide separate rooms for special branches of the work.
They extend that recommendation by a further statement saying that many of the members of the Committee themselves had a tour of inspection and visited many of these Employment Exchanges, and could quite confirm the evidence that had been placed before them by witnesses, and they urged that the Labour Ministry should at once endeavour to establish suitable premises for the proper conducting of the registration, the filing, the keeping of the records, and of the general purposes of unemployment insurance.
There you get two consecutive Interdepartmental Committees reporting almost in precisely the same terms, and yet nothing whatever has been done to carry out their recommendations. I quite well remember asking my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Camber-well (Dr. Macnamara) whether he had, while he occupied his office, taken into consideration those recommendations, and whether anything had been done. No steps have been taken. The Report was under consideration, I believe, at the time when further burdens fell upon the Employment Exchanges, and for the time being the matter was put off.
There is, in conjunction with the unsuitable accommodation for the staff, so far as the Exchange itself is concerned, the absence of all arrangements for studying the convenience of the unfortunate signees. It is quite a common sight, for anyone who cares to look, to see queues of applicants waiting their turn outside ugly, shapeless, emaciated Employment Exchanges, the subject of the jeers, the vulgar scoffing and the crude jokes of the passer-by. Yet if one studies the features of those applicants, waiting in the full public view and parading their poverty because of lack of suitable accommodation for them in connection with their signing on, one sees the hopeless yet permanent imprint of poverty's pain, writ large ever those who have been called to stand the strain under those circumstances. It is not fair for a Ministry, even though it be to save some expenditure, to compel unfortunate applicants, through a circumstance which, in itself, is bad enough, to stand in all weathers publicly paraded and open to the scoffing jokes of the passer-by in reference to the dole, thus adding continual burdens of insult to the injury inflicted upon them over which they have
no control. I would urge very sincerely that some immediate steps should be taken to remedy this obvious defect which has lasted all too long.
I want now to offer some criticisms so far as staff is concerned. This, too, was the subject of a recommendation by these two same Committees. I ought, perhaps, to qualify the remarks of mine which will follow by saying that I have no reason to doubt but that the vast majority of the staffs employed, when one considers the circumstances under which they are called upon to carry out their duties, are very valuable servants and anxious to do all they possibly can. I must say, however, there is a proportion of the staff who are unsuitable for their duties, either because of their lack of fitness, or because of their lack of knowledge, or because of their having been drawn from some calling or occupation in which they have not had occasion to display that human touch which is so necessary in dealing with human derelicts who have for a long time been unemployed. I have myself overheard remarks which have pained me considerably in the matter. I actually know of a case where it was a joke in the exchange that a man had passed the remark, "I have done him one," referring to an applicant who had persistently attended the exchange in order to get his claims for which he, as an association administrator, was responsible carried into effect, and when it came to his own turn to apply, the joke was passed round, "I have done him one." I myself had to be present at an appeal on behalf of that man, who had been disqualified by reason of that display of temper or lack of full appreciation of the proper duties and responsibilities on the part of a member of the staff of that particular exchange.
There is one point of which I want the Minister's representative to take note. I believe—in fact I am informed that it is so—that secretaries of some of these Employment Exchange Committees (who, by the way, are responsible officials of the Ministry) have sent out invitations to people on behalf of the National Constitutional Party, in Government franked envelopes, inviting them to meetings for the purpose of propagating emigration. I say that a member of an Employment Exchange staff has no right to place his services at the disposal of any
private association, and has no right to use Government franked envelopes for the purpose of summoning meetings to support the propaganda of any particular association. If it is part of the Government's policy to encourage emigration, then it should be the Government's machinery which is used for its own propaganda. The Government machinery should not be used for helping any particular association.
5.0 P.M.
There is another point which I desire to mention. The staffs have been responsible for the loss of many thousands of pounds to associations administering unemployment benefit. I have in mind one, with which I myself am associated, which ceased to administer unemployment benefit. In July of last year when we asked for a settlement, although we supplied the accounts forms with our members signatures as having received the amount, we were told that authority had not gone through for the meeting of the bill. It left over £10,000 due to that one association alone, caused, I assert, if not wholly, in part, by the negligence of the Employment Exchange officials in not sending forward authorities such as could be presented for meeting payments made by the association. So much can that be said to have been proven, that a deputation waited on my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camber-well upon this very point, and the Kew Department gave assistance and accommodation for that association to send it own clerks to Kew to overhaul the records which were there. Three clerks have been there from July until the present month, and in searching out the records there they have been able further establish a claim for £3,000 out of the £10,000. The other £7,000 of claims have not yet been established. Whether it has been the unsuitability of the Exchange which has reacted upon the possible efficiency of the staff and caused papers to go astray, or incomplete records to be kept—whatever be the cause—the fact remains that associations stand to lose thousands of pounds by taking over the administration in that particular respect. I want to quote further from the Committee presided over by the Right Hon. George N. Barnes in connection with staffs, and
I would like that recommendation to be fully considered. It says:
 The officials chosen to deal with employers and workpeople should either be (1) persons who, having been admitted to the Civil Service by the methods common in the Civil Service as a whole, have by subordinate work in the Exchange and by availing themselves of the authorised opportunities which that service presents, obtained a good general knowledge of the industry in the locality; or (2) persons taken into the Civil Service at a somewhat higher age than the maximum age for normal Civil Service entrance on the ground of their industrial knowledge and experience.
I commend that to the present Ministry. It is no use putting in men, no matter how highly technically trained they may be, if they have not human helpfulness and that general understanding of the position of the applicant that is required. The Exchange is there to help and encourage all those who are entitled to it, and not for the purpose of depriving applicants or closing up the avenues of helpfulness that should be open to them.
There is also the question of un-covenanted benefit. I am fully aware that early in 1922, out of the total payments made in unemployment benefit, there was a percentage of 66 drawing un-covenanted benefit and 34 drawing covenanted benefit. In January, this year, the figures had been drastically turned round to the extent that only 16 per cent. are receiving un-covenanted benefit. I can understand one reason for the change is, that, by rule or direction, certain credits had been given to those who had established stamp rights, and this fact wipes out a large number who would have continued otherwise to draw un-covenanted benefit, but, at the same time, I feel a doubt as to the extent that the unsympathetic or unwilling attitude of the staff in certain industrial centres may be responsible for the further cutting down of that figure. One knows that in normal times there is a rather unwholesome competition between relieving officers as to who can run his district cheapest, and I hope that is not the spirit which enters into the administration of un-covenanted benefit. No one would be more pleased than I to be assured that that is not so, and that every help and sympathy that can be given, is given. In this connection I would ask that the Minister might compare 10 or 12 comparable industrial centres and inform us as to the per-
centage of un-covenanted benefit in each of those districts. If there is a great margin of difference in the figures, then there must be a difference, as far as administration is concerned. There is the case of the applicant who claims for dependency allowance. He fills in a form, and I believe when one of his children is within a near approach to the age limit of 14, if the man satisfies the Exchange officials of all particulars every week, he has put before him the same receipt, which he has to sign.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. HAYDAY: That receipt is placed before the applicant every week, but in the course of time that child passes outside the age limit of 14. In the course of time the records are overhauled, and, perhaps, four weeks after the child has passed the age limit that man has been drawing the allowance. Then that man is taken before a Police Court and charged with having illegally received this extra 1s. per week. If the record is at the Exchange the precise date of the birth of the child would be there. I suggest that prosecution in such cases is very unkind, and that there should be some machinery for automatically stopping the 1s. a week as soon as the child passes the age limit, or for warning the man a week beforehand. I had such a case before me on the Bench, and I advised the legal representative of the Department that I thought it was rather cruel if the man had four or five children and was receiving the same amount every week, and had to hurry on and sign the receipt because other people are pressing behind him, that he should be prosecuted, even if he had a knowledge that the shilling extra had been drawn. That man has the knowledge of how much the extra shilling means. You may say it is wrong to give way to such temptation, but when an extra shilling is handed over the counter in a hurried way and the man is told to sign, I think there is some excuse, and I suggest that the Ministry should take means to automatically stop these payments as soon as a child passes the respective age limit period.
I would like to refer to the position of a person who comes on when there is a break in the payment. I would like that
the machinery of the Department which reviews these periods should be brought to a higher state of effectiveness if possible, so that after the gap period is passed any person admitted to benefit should be in a position to come into that benefit as soon as the gap period has ended. They should not have to wait four or five weeks after the matter has been dealt with. There is another very grave matter which I now want to introduce. It involves, I rather think, the, Ministry of Health as well as the Ministry of Labour. It is the tendency to introduce test work for those in receipt of outdoor relief on what would otherwise be public works. They would absorb, as I think they ought to absorb, the unemployed through the agency of the Employment Exchanges.
I will refer in particular to one case, which is a scandal and a violation of the pretension that it is desired adequately and fairly to find suitable employment at reasonable rates of pay for those who may be absorbed. The other day I asked the Minister of Health a question relating to Coventry. I asserted that the guardians, by arrangement with the local authority, had taken over certain gas main excavations and had applied them as test labour for those who were in receipt of relief, and that payment was being made in kind only. In answer to supplementary questions, the Minister of Health replied that it was an arrangement between the corporation and the guardians, and that it was not a matter, in which he had any responsibility. I am sure that the House will agree that this is not a time to apply Acts of Parliament that date back to 1844 and 1852, in order to find some precedent. In this particular case there is much more than that. It means the introduction almost of a penal test scheme, and I am sure that if the public knew to what extent it is being applied generally there would be much more said about it in the Press of the country. This is a case where the Coventry Board of Guardians claim the right to set men on to this work, and expect the gas department to report about a month later whether or not the men have passed the test. I suppose that if they pass the test they will continue in that employment. Then it becomes continuous employment under a system of payment partly in kind and partly in money.
Trade union standards have fallen considerably, and relief work wages are less than trade union wages, but this task work payment was less than the relief work payment. Therefore, instead of helping the unemployed it is lowering the standards, and it makes, not the Ministry of Labour the machinery for supplying men at proper rates of pay under proper conditions, but makes the Minister of Health and the board of guardians the machinery to take over from the Ministry of Labour the finding of work, under such degrading test conditions and at such rates of pay that none of us could agree with them. I wish to read an extract or two from some important letters bearing upon this matter. There is one from the Clerk to the Coventry Union to the Secretary of the Coventry Trades and Labour Council, with reference to this test work. The letter says:
 I beg to inform you that the consent of the Ministry of Health was obtained to the scheme on 6th November, 1922. With regard to the National Insurance Act and Employers' Liability, the guardians are advised that the interpretation of employed persons ' and 'workmen ' in the National Insurance Act of 1911, Schedule I, and in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, apply to persons of the age of 16 or upwards who are employed under a contract of personal service. On the facts stated, the men to whom the guardians grant outdoor relief on condition that they do work in accordance with the terms of the work ticket, are not employed by the council within the meaning of the Act, and it is not necessary for the council surveyor to stamp the men's health and insurance cards, as it is clear that they do not work for the council under a contract of service. Further, the Board are also advised that the relationship of employer and employé does not exist in the work scheme as at present adopted with regard to Employers' Liability.
You see, therefore, that this arrangement permits great schemes to be worked with the application of the test for oudoor relief from the guardians, and it excludes the stamping of health and unemployment insurance cards. Should an accident or injury take place it puts the men outside employers' liability. It is a state of affairs to which, I hope, the Ministers of Health and Labour will pay their attention, in order to see that such practices are not sanctioned. The matter arose with the Minister of Labour, for a letter was sent to him on 6th February, to which he replied on 21st February as follows:
 The Secretary is directed to inform you that from the inquiries made it would appear that the question referred to in your letter of 6th February is one for the consideration of the Ministry of Health, to whom your letter has accordingly been forwarded, and to whom any further communications on the subject should be addressed.
Then the Ministry of Health replied:
 I am directed by the Minister of Health to refer to your letter of the 6th, addressed to the Minister of Labour, and to reply that the extension and relaying of gas mains for the Coventry Corporation by men in receipt of Poor Law relief has been sanctioned by the Minister of Health as test work, and that the amount and nature of the relief granted are matters within the discretion of the guardians of the Coventry Union, subject to the Regulations in force.
So the guardians can give whatever scale of relief they like; the Coventry Gas Department can hand over all its gas main laying to the guardians if it chooses, and the men employed on the work are to be deprived of all right to stamps on their cards and to employers' liability compensation should they be injured whilst so employed. That leads me to the conclusion that all the pretensions to a desire to help are futile. The board of guardians concerned lays down another condition, to which. I call attention. It is in a letter from the clerk to the Coventry Union to the secretary of the Coventry Trades and Labour Council. The letter says:
 If the maximum scale of relief is granted, more than half is given in money, although it is an instruction from the Ministry of Health that half such relief should be given in kind.
Further, the letter says:
 After full and careful consideration it was resolved that an instruction be given for the rent book to be produced in all cases where the relief granted is on the basis of the maximum scale, even if relief in kind only is given.
It is scandalous that cases of this kind should be allowed. Men ought to be taken from the Employment Exchanges at proper rates of pay. The guardians are putting in these workmen and depriving them of the common rights that belong to any workman outside Poor Law administration. Although they may have the bundles of groceries, the meat ticket, and the coal ticket, yet, say the guardians, "We must see your rent book every week in order to ascertain whether you have paid the rent." How can a man pay rent if the whole of the relief
payments are made in kind? How can be be expected to barter some of the tickets for food in order to raise the money for paying rent? This has been done in accordance with an Act that is 70 years old. The Corporation of Coventry is about to undertake work to the extent of over £45,000, and negotiations were begun to extend the test to that work. If the Minister of Labour has any power in the matter I would urge that a committee of inquiry be set up locally to go into the subject. When I went to present this matter on the men's side to the Joint Industrial Council of the Gas Industry, I heard reports of certain things that were being attempted in other parts of the country, but in those cases local feeling was strong enough to cause a postponement so that the unemployed men might be absorbed and their status and independence be maintained by their being engaged on work at proper rates of wages, instead of being sent in batches from the Poor Law, almost like a gang of convicts, to do a penal task as a condition precedent to receiving outdoor relief payment, the bulk of which was to be in kind. I hope that the precedent set at Coventry will not be followed by the Minister.
In conclusion, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see to what extent relief work schemes can be hastened. Facilities for loans to local authorities have recently been somewhat handicapped, and I hope there will be an opening out of the channels which will permit of the rapid flow of assistance for schemes designed to absorb largo numbers of our unemployed. It is bad enough for many of these local authorities to be saddled with the loan. They will carry the burden for a large number of years, and it is very difficult for them to meet the liabilities that are placed upon them. Once they are prepared to do something, I hope the facilities afforded them will be as generous as possible and that everything will be done to assist them to meet the crying needs of the unfortunate inhabitants under their jurisdiction. I would further urge, in connection with these relief schemes, that instead of the rates of wages being less than trade union rates, the trade union rates should apply. Since that regulation was passed, many of the trade union rates have come down to the level which was at that time represented by 75 per cent. of the trade union rates, and with the longer period of unemploy-
went the men have lost a great deal of their efficiency at this kind of work. I hope the time has now arrived when not only will there be a more generous allocation of loans for local authorities on more generous terms, but also that the unemployed from the register may be set to work upon these schemes at trade union rates, and taken away from any overlooking by, or any supplying of test work to the boards of guardians under the debasing and harrowing conditions represented in the case I have just now put before the House.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will be brief, because there are many speakers, and several other subjects are to be raised in the Debate. As regards the figures of the register of unemployment, we commenced the year with 1,485,000 wholly unemployed. In the 10 weeks which elapsed down to 12th March we got down to 1,302,000. There is an improvement in those 10 weeks of 183,000. So far so good. The improvement of course has been very slow, and there can be no doubt that it will be very slow, but I think it is being steadily maintained. I greatly regret the indisposition of the Minister of Labour, and I hope he may soon recover, but I am quite sure it is a consolation to him to know that he is so admirably represented in the House, as he is this afternoon, by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister of Labour has done all he could in the circumstances. He has continued unemployment insurance. He has continued it, in the first instance, up to the middle of October, and I, personally, am much obliged to him for adopting the suggestion which I made on the Second Reading, that he ought to commence the new period as from 12th April and not as from 19th April as originally proposed. In addition, he has taken powers to continue the Unemployment Insurance Benefit Scheme —which is purely an emergency scheme, let it never be forgotten—from October, 1923, onwards for at least a year, and I gather, if necessary, even further than that.
It is that point to which I wish to call particular attention but let me for a moment refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). As regards administration my hon. Friend knows he has only got to represent a case to the Minister and his
colleague and every consideration will be given to it. Upstairs during the Committee stage of the Bill, the Minister undertook to consider all the Regulations and see whether the harness galled anywhere. He undertook to review them, if at all possible, in the light of the representations made by my hon. Friend and I am sure he will do so. As regards the premises of the Employment Exchanges my hon. Friend was very severe upon the condition of a good many of them, and I say at once quite frankly, not without reason. Undoubtedly in many cases they are unsuitable; they are old residential houses which were not intended for this purpose at all, but we had to cut our coat according to our cloth. We had to economise because, after all, the real way to reduce unemployment is to reduce taxation. I have no doubt a good deal of unemployment to-day arises from the unduly heavy taxation resulting from the War. We had, to put it colloquially, to make shift as best we could. My hon. Friend was quite right in paying a tribute to the fine social service rendered by the Employment Exchange officers. I am full of admiration for what they have done during the 2. years of the slump in very difficult circumstances having regard to the unsuitable character of so many of the premises. It would be impossible to overstate our obligations to them.
When my hon. Friend says that sometimes they may not deal sympathetically and humanely with applicants, I must say I have never met with cases of that kind. I have found as a matter of fact, that these men, 99 per cent. of whom are ex-service men, deal with the cases which come before them day by day with infinite patience, infinite sympathy and infinite humanity. That. I believe to be generally true, and I think my hon. Friend will agree that, generally speaking, these men are doing a very fine work with great patience and consideration, though admittedly the premises in particular cases are not all they might be. My hon. Friend referred to the lamentable spectacle of people standing in long queues in inclement weather waiting to go in for the purpose either of registration or of drawing benefit. Of course he knows that anybody responsible would endeavour to remove that necessity and it would have been removed if these poor people had
only kept to the timing arrangement which was drawn up. It was arranged that a certain number whose names began with a certain letter, should come at 9 o'clock in the morning, others coming at 10 o'clock, and so on. Had that plan been carried out no one need remain outside. Unfortunately it was not always possible for the people to fall in with the timing arrangements, and like all other human institutions, it did not work with the smoothness of machinery. I satisfied myself that had the timing arrangements been kept, notwithstanding the unsuitability of the premises, it would not have been necessary for anybody to wait outside, and the last thing anyone would wish is that poor people not altogether well sustained by food should have to stand outside during inclement weather. I am afraid they did not or could not keep to the timing arrangement which we tried to introduce, if it was necessary for them to stand about in the rain.
I come now to the main point with which I rose to deal. The Government is taking powers to continue the Unemployment Insurance scheme which is an emergency scheme from October, 1923, onwards for a year at least and it may be for longer. I quite concur with that. It will make assurance doubly sure. I do not mind saying that I was constantly harassed by the fear that my provision might "peter out" at a time when Parliament was not sitting. Therefore I quite agree with this measure as a standby. What I press upon the Government is that it is not enough merely to continue the Unemployment Insurance Act in its emergency form from October, 1923, onwards. The Government ought to do far more than that. The Government has got to realise that the permanent post-War unemployment problem is going to be entirely different from and very much larger than the permanent pre-War unemployment problem. It is going to be different in character, and it is going to be larger for several reasons. Firstly, there is the increase in population; secondly there is the cessation of emigration during the War. Thirdly there is the fact that many women who came into industry temporarily during the War are remaining in it; and fourthly there is the fact that you have got ever increasing labour-saving appliances mitigated no
doubt by shorter hours in certain cases. For all these reasons the post-War unemployment problem is going to be much more serious as a permanent problem than was the pre-War problem.
Before the War, in good times, when trade was flourishing, we had 200,000 men unemployed. When good times come again, as they will sooner or later, we are going to have at least twice as many and, in all human probability, three times as many. In good times we may very well have 600,000 unemployed. The problem is going to be different in this way. Before the War the 200,000 were middle-aged and elderly men, many of them rather broken and rather incapable of employment because of long periods of hard luck and unemployment. The 600,000 is going to contain quite a large number of active, strong, vigorous, enduring young men. That is the problem to which I wish to draw attention. These young men are there largely because of the War. They are in the ranks of the unskilled because of the War, and had it not been for the War they might very well be in the ranks of the skilled or the semi-skilled. What are we going to do about that problem? The first thing to do is to press for all we know the Empire Settlement Act. I understand an arrangement has been made to deal with that subject in greater detail at a later stage of the Debate, and I will not enter into it fully now. These men are drifting; they are becoming demoralised. Let us help them before their chance is gone. If we let this chance go, all efforts under the Empire Settlement Act will be no good, and it is as certain as that to-morrow's sun will rise that it will mean, for two out 'of every three, nothing but demoralisation, bad luck and failure. Each of them will marry some despondent woman who will bring up little scraps of humanity in the overcrowded parts of great cities—and these are the men to whom we owe so much—whereas in the open spaces of the Empire, for two out of three, there is an equally certain chance of health, strength and vigour with a happy helpmate conscious of the fact that she is rearing hardy children who will be able to make their way in the world as their father did before them. When my hon. Friend was talking about this Act and its administration he referred to the
fact that Employment Exchange officers sometimes invited men to consider that opportunity. Would not he agree that the officers should invite the men to do so, with these two prospects before them? It is a voluntary matter. The men please themselves, but do not let us think we are befriending them by telling them not to take up this scheme.

Mr. HAYDAY: What I complained about was the secretary of the Employment Exchange committee sending out, on behalf of a private society, Government franked envelopes containing invitations to a meeting to discuss the question of migration. What I was complaining about was the use of the machinery not for a Department but for a private association.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Empire Settlement Act provides—though my hon. Friend may not be aware of the fact— that its operations can be carried out by the Oversea Settlement Committee and private associations as well—the Salvation Army, and so on. At any rate, with these two prospects staring the men in the face, if they wish to go, let them go, and God speed to them, and let us render them every assistance and see that they go under fair conditions. I agree that they are entitled to be prejudiced in this matter, because of the way in which the thing has been done in the past. I listened with sympathy to an hon. Member, the last time this was debated, who made some rather scathing remarks about the shipping companies and the operation of these schemes. But this is on a new plan altogether. This is a real chance, and all I ask is—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Let them go on to the land in this country.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Let them do both. Here are open spaces that want the right sort of men, and here are the men, and therefore do not let us allow any prejudice to rob these men of their chance, which is drifting away from them every hour of the day.

Mr. BROAD: Why not give them a chance here?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Give them a chance in both cases. If my hon. Friends wait until they get their system going, whatever it may be, then these men's chances will have gone. Cannot we compromise on this? Cannot we arrange
that you shall go on working out your system, but we will give these men a hand in the meantime? I press most earnestly upon the Government the question of the working of the Empire Settlement Act for all we know. There are one or two other things that I want to say apart from that, but that is the immediate thing, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will do me the favour to represent these views.
More than that, collaterally with the working out of the unemployment insurance scheme from October, 1923, onwards, the Government has, I think, to ask the Cabinet Unemployment Committee to consider permanent schemes here at home for the post-War unemployment problem which will confront them, and, first of all, in that respect those schemes have, if I may say so, got to have as their main objective continuity of employment, and money relief a bad second best. Perhaps it was inevitable, in the calamitous slump which came upon us, but all other schemes have had as their first objective—I think I am not over-stating this—money assistance, with work as a second objective. We began with the unemployment insurance scheme, and then we went on to loan guarantees, trade facilities, emergency work, and so on. Now let us put continuity of employment as the first, the main, objective, with the necessary financial assistance as the second best. In regard to the first objective, then, there are all sorts of real public utility schemes in the air. There are tunnels and waterways, electrical power development, land reclamation, and afforestation. I want the Cabinet Unemployment Committee now to sit down, and hammer out these schemes.

Mr. J. JONES: You said that in 1920.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, and we found work for 100,000 men on an average during the whole of the slump. Bearing in mind the overwhelming task thrown upon us, that is not such a bad record, but as the figures are now falling off and hands are getting lightened, we should look into the future, and take time by the forelock, and see whether we cannot sit down and hammer out permanent schemes of real public utility such as I have mentioned. There are plenty of works in the air, which the Cabinet
Unemployment Committee might consider, so as to have them ready for use directly bad times come again.

Mr. WALLHEAD: A Ministry of Reconstruction!

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is reconstruction. The task in the past was overwhelming. We found ourselves with over 2,000,000 unemployed and over 1,000,000 on short time at one time, and, as I say, the task was really overwhelming, but even then we managed to make public utility work which found employment, on an average over the whole of the last two years, for 100,000 men, which is not so bad.
Now I come to rather a difficult matter. I wonder whether private employers, especially when they operate on a large scale, cannot consider whether it is not possible so to organise their operations as to have regard to the condition of the labour market. I wonder whether the Joint Industrial Councils representing both sides—they have been referred to this afternoon as an admirable body by my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham who submitted a case to them in another connection—cannot consider, for each industry, how far it is feasible so to conduct their industrial operations as to make them harmonise with trade fluctuations. I do not say that is easy; I do not pretend to say it is easy; I am quite willing to admit it is extremely difficult, but if we are going to get continuity of employment as our main objective, not only should public utility works be got ready and public contracts be put out with regard to the condition of the labour market, but private employers, especially those who operate on a large scale, should consider whether it is not possible—

Mr. BROAD: We advocated that years ago.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member ought to rejoice that we are agreeing with him now. Some people are never satisfied. I suggest, therefore, the examination of these public utility schemes, the putting out of Government and municipal contracts, and the examination by private employers of the question of continuity of employment, notwithstanding trade fluctuations, if it be possible. These are my suggestions, and I
am quite sure my hon.. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will represent them to the Minister of Labour for what they are worth, but I press this: It is not enough to say, "Ah well, we have got an unemployment insurance scheme going on from October, 1923, onwards," and then to sit with nerveless, listless hands. That is not enough. Nobody on that Bench would wish that it should be considered enough, I know, and what I ask is that, collaterally with all that, these schemes should be hammered out, so that, say, on this day 12 months things may so far have got back to the normal that we may then be able to put in the place of this temporary scheme something more permanent, more stable, something which shall have, as its main objective, continuity of employment rather than money assistance for those for whom employment cannot be found.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I have listened with great interest to the latest convert to what the Labour party have been advocating for many years past. The Labour party suggested in 1918 that the Government of the day, of which the right hon. Member for North-West Camber-well (Dr. Macnamara) happened to be a Member, should prepare schemes for the problems of unemployment that would inevitably face this country as a result of the peace conditions, or the prospect of peace conditions, following on the War. We did the same thing in 1919. They set up a Ministry of Reconstruction, and after that they destroyed by destructive means the Ministry of Reconstruction. Now we are being seriously told that the Government ought to do all those things which we have suggested already. It is the old party game. In opposition, tell those in power what to do, but when in power, refuse to do what they have told those in power to do when they were in opposition. That is the position which we have to face to-day—the old party game being played. We are thankful that the country has seen fit to send a real live Opposition into the House of Commons, that will seek to show up the sham. Opposition there has been in the past. It has been seriously suggested by the right hon. Member for North-West Camber-well that we ought to go in for a great scheme of emigration. Why not
cultivate the barren parts of our own land first, before we seek to cultivate the barren parts across the seas?
May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, and those who agree with him, that they might read a book just written by Dr. Ernest A. Baker? In that book he has pointed out what appeals to Scottish Members in particular, and that is the serious situation in connection with the land question as it affects the country from which we come and some of the constituencies which we represent. In that book, "Through the Highlands with Rope and Rucksack," the author has given to the country new material, so far as the depopulation of the Highlands is concerned. He there refers to the fact, well known by the students of the Scottish land system at least, that there was a time when the mountains and moorlands of Scotland were as free and open as the sea shore. They are not now. They are used in many instances— to the extent, I think, of approximately 4,000,000 acres— for deer forests. I do not claim for a single moment that in dealing with the unemployment problem the whole of those 4,000,000 acres could be used entirely for the ordinary methods of agriculture, but I suggest that at least one-half of the 4,000,000 acres could be used for better purposes than those for which they are used at the present time, and I suggest that, according to the figures submitted, and admitted by a Commission set up by this House itself, dealing with the question of re-afforestation, over 1,000,000 acres of that land could be used for re-afforestation, so far as Scotland is concerned. I suggest that, so far as the other 2,000,000 acres are concerned, which to-day are used for deer forests, surely if they can rear deer on it, to say the very least, I think—and T do not mean this for humour—they could rear goats on it. There are countries where they are able to use goats. Unfortunately, many of our opponents opposite have succeeded in using the horny-handed goats up to the present. I hope, however, they will become a little more intelligent in the future, and then we will be able to have real representation of the people to deal with the unemployment problem.
I would ask the right hon. Member for North West Camber-well to read the book to which I have referred, as it will give him some education in connection with the situation in Scotland. There was a
time when that land was used for sheep runs, and there were at least, shall I say, 500 per cent. more people engaged in sheep farming than, at the present time, are engaged in connection with the deer forests. That also would help to solve the problem, and even if we went back to the old sheep farming system, it would help to solve some part of the unemployment problem, and also some of the problems in connection with the food supply of the country. One-fifth of the whole area of Scotland is to-day given over to deer forests, and according to the Departmental Committee on Deer Forests, there was in 1919 a total of 3,442,385 acres of land in Scotland given over to deer forests. People have been drifting from the hillsides, the straths, and the glens of Scotland into our industrial areas, and no one will say that that has been to their advantage. It certainly stands towards decreasing the physical power of the people of Scotland, and it certainly stands towards increasing the problem of unemployment in our large industrial areas. When they have got the 1,000,000 acres, that could be used for other pur poses, it is no use the right hon. Member for North West Camber-well beginning to preach about overseas development and emigration, when so many of those men who to-day are unemployed fought to defend what I believe is the most glorious land on earth, and now are told to get out, after they have made it successful for the owners of deer forests to draw rents from the land for that purpose.
6.0 P.M.
Unemployment is accentuated and intensified by the deer forests in Scotland. They provide trifling employment for approximately 2,000 gillies, who are employed in deer forests, and on the fringes of these pleasure grounds of the rich, where pheasants and deer are fed and Scottish peasants are starved, the relics of a bold, brave, fearless, and independent Scottish peasantry are fighting a losing battle against poverty, despair, starvation, and misery. There is no getting away from that, as those who understand the Scottish position know. In the Highlands in particular, and in Scotland in general, the land is being used to give sport, and an enormous amount of wealth is expended for the few, who are determined to keep out and keep under subjection the many who ought to
have free access to that very land. There are a few other aspects of the case with which I should like to deal. I want to deal with the suggestion of emigrating the child-life of this country. I have received a secret memorandum, supposed to be secret—and perhaps is the reason that I got hold of it—issued by the Labour Ministry to the Juvenile Employment Committees in Scotland. In that secret memorandum it is pointed out that the Department are desirous of emigrating from this country to Australia 500 boys per month. We have heard to-day eloquent declarations as to the need for proper guardianship of children up to a certain age. Yet some hon. Members are prepared to support a scheme for the emigration of young children between the ages of 14 and 17. I say that it is a diabolical scheme, and I use the word purposely, because it is a fair one to describe it. Sending away children who ought to have the care of parents in their own country!
As a parent I am pleading in view of the fact that in the near future it may be the position in which I am placed in respect of my own child, and I want to appeal to hon. Members to look at this matter from the point of view of parents. Would hon. Members opposite like to part with their children between the ages of 14 and 17, during the most impressionable age so far as boys, at least, are concerned? You are busy at present passing a Bill to remove from lads one of the temptations around them in the drink shops, and that is all to the good. I am going to do my best to see that the boys of the working-classes are given a fair chance, because not only they, hut the boys of the richer classes as well, all require at these critical ages the guiding hand of the father and the tender care of the mother. I want, to protest against the suggestion of the Labour Ministry to emigrate children between the ages of 14 and 17. If there is to be a scheme of emigration surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to elaborate other schemes of emigration which will avoid seeking to destroy the homes of the people. We are justified in putting forward this attitude specially in view of the many petitions which have been submitted to the House suggesting that we on this side of the House are seeking to
destroy the sanctity of the home in connection with some of the teaching in our socialistic sunday schools. I beg to suggest that the circular which has led the Juvenile Employment Committees seriously to discuss the emigration of boys between 14 and 17 years of age is wrong and that you ought not to go in for any scheme of emigration on those lines. It is a shame, a scandal, and immoral to take away these children from the proper care of the father and mother at this particular age.
There is another aspect of the question. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of Health for Scotland in his place, because it is rather unfortunate that the Secretary for Scotland happens to be in the other place when we are discussing Scottish questions. I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman present, because there is a question which directly affects the problems of unemployment, so far as administration is concerned, and that is the question of the feeding of necessitous school children. The hon. and gallant Gentleman could, by the withdrawal by his Department of that infamous Circular No. 51, do something good. That circular sought to take away powers which for many many years the education authorities in Scotland—the old school board, and now the new education authorities— imagined that they had got in dealing with the children of necessitous parents. Anyone knows that if a father has only got 21s., 22s., or 23s. a week that it is absolutely impossible for the parents to provide all that is necessary for two or three children, as the case may be. They get better help from the parish council if they have three or four children. The father gets 12s. 6d., the mother 10s., and they are allowed up to 3s. 6d. for each child. Under the unemployment scale they are only allowed 1s. for each child. Actually it pays them better to be on the parish council relief rather than to be getting the unemployment donation. With the latter it is impossible to provide what it is necessary for the children and to provide them with food and clothing. Before this we claim that we had that power.
Let me draw the attention of the Secretary far Health to what happened when the War was on. We were all brothers then, of course! The question of defending our native land and to see that justice
was done was to the front. I have here a Circular, No. 461, issued by the Education Department, dated 7th August, 1914, three days after we entered upon the awful catastrophe that came upon us in that month of August. It states in that circular that the determination of what cases are to be regarded as necessitous is one for the discretion of school boards. The powers of a board under the Act extended to the provision of meals for school children during the holidays, and not merely during actual attendance at school. It was hoped accordingly that when occasion arose boards, while taking all due precaution against waste and needless expenditure, would make a liberal use of their powers under the Act to meet all cases of genuine distress. That was the time, Mr. Speaker, when this country was face to face with an outside foe. May I remind hon. Members of a quotation from a famous poem by Quarles:
 Our God and soldier we alike adore,
But only when in danger, not before;
The danger o'er, both are alike requited,
God is forgotten, and the soldier slighted.
There are hundreds of soldiers' children who have been refused food in Scotland, food that is necessary, because Circular No. 51 has taken the power away from the education authorities to fulfil the functions that they imagined they had' power to fulfil prior to that infamous circular being issued.
I want to appeal to the Secretary for Health to put before his Noble Friend in the other House — that is the inevitable answer we get when dealing with these matters—to put before him the situation that has been placed before the House by a member of the executive of an education authority for which I can speak as to the absolute unanimity in our demand. It is no use trying to put dates into the heads of the children when they ought to be having dates put into their stomachs. That condition will be ameliorated by giving us back power to deal with the conditions that apply to unemployment at the present time. So far as constructive work is concerned, I beg to suggest that we should deal with the question of re-afforestation. You only allowed on a Supplementary Estimate a provision of £50,000 to deal with afforestation. At the present time I represent a county
where you could quite well spend £100,000 in re-afforesting the hillsides denuded of their trees during the War. That would practically help the unemployed problem from Edinburgh right to the borders. My hon. and gallant Friend has, I believe, been visiting the harder recently. I trust that he will deal more closely, as I hoped he was going to do, with the problem of unemployment, and that he will seriously consider the suggestions I am making about re-wooding the hillsides of Peeble-shire, by re-afforestation of the country on the proper lines. Such a policy would, at least, I believe, help the unemployment problem so far as the southern counties of Scotland are concerned.
I might further point out that the Royal Commission on Coast Erosion and Afforestation, 1909, made certain recommendations. The Commission also made a certain statement in which they pointed out that there were 6,000,000 derelict acres of land in Scotland which were suitable for afforestation. They further said that not more than 5 per cent. of the soil of Scotland is under forest, while in Germany it is 26 per cent. and France 17 per cent. We import into this country every year £30,000,000 worth of timber and wood pulp, of which two-thirds could well be grown at home. That is a statement from your own Commission, Why should we not develop our own home resources first before taking in hand to develop resources overseas? I am not objecting to overseas development, but while we talk about that, I would point out very strongly that we have so much room for development in our own country—that so much can be done to keep the boys and girls employed in the land of their birth, the land for which so many of their fathers fought, for which so many soldiers died, and which we believe worth defending and worth fighting for.
In Saxony the net revenue from the State forests was 22s. per acre, or £19,000,000 per annum. We know (say the Commission) that the only reason why private landlords do not engage in afforestation—and that is my reason for putting the scheme before the House, and because afforestation is a national question and something which ought to be done by the State—the only reason
private owners do not put it forward as a profitable investment is because the capital invested does not give that speedy return to the owner that he likes. The question is one for the State to take up and for the Government to provide the proper schemes necessary to deal with the problem of unemployment which will sooner or later become more intensified even than now. If we went in for a real scheme of afforestation, 150,000 acres annually would find profitable and economic employment in drainage and planting for 18,000 men for six months from October to March, which is the planting season. The expenditure of £1,000,000 per annum would purchase the soil, provide roots and implements, and cover certain expenses.
I am going to state from these benches that the tribunal appointed to go into this matter of taking over the land of those who own it could see that they have a proper title; if not, obviously it is stolen property. The £1,000,000 to which I refer would provide what. I have said, and cover managerial expenses and wages, these latter on a basis of well over £1 per week. That is the Royal Commission basis of 1909. The expenditure necessary for the purpose of re-afforestation in Scotland would only be equal to the expenditure of one Dreadnought. I am inclined to think that it would be far more wisely spent by providing employment, something in return for the expenditure, than spending money on destructive purposes which we are so ready to do at the present time.
I beg further to suggest that it might be worth the consideration of the Government, in considering the question of unemployment, to deal with the Mid-Scotland Canal Scheme placed before this House. I understand a Commission or Committee has sat which has seriously considered this particular problem. May I point out, in connection with the Mid-Scotland Canal scheme, that the strategic advantages of such a navigable waterway are admitted by the Admiralty? In a communication to the Secretary for Scotland on the 12th August, 1921, the Admiralty stated that the strategic advantages of such a canal are:


" (1) A navigable waterway between the East and West Coasts of the United Kingdom, facilitating naval concentration in the North Sea or Atlantic, without having to pass either through the Straits of Dover or round the North of Scotland.
365
(2) A means whereby ships damaged in the North Sea could be speedily passed by a safe route to western repairing yards, and vice versâ.
(3) A safe alternative route in time of war for merchant ships hound to and from ports on the East Coast."
The argument used by those who oppose the scheme is that there would be no agreement as to whether the long route by Loch Lomond or the short route should be followed, but I understand that agreement has now been arrived at in favour of the direct route, which would be only 29 miles long, and which, it is now claimed, would cost only £35,000,000. Even if it cost £35,000,000 and then, at the end, did not provide a commercial return, still, having expended £35,000,000, at the end of that time you would have a canal that would help commerce and would be of some use, instead of continuing, as at present, to spend money on donations or doles from which there is no return whatever. I think the Government might, in dealing with the problem of unemployment, seriously consider this question of the Mid-Scotland Canal. But for the fact that I know that many hon. Members wish to speak in this Debate, I should be able to develop the argument and give figures showing the advantages that would accrue from the canal. There are one or two points in connection with administration to which I am anxious to draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and also of the Ministry of Labour. The problem of unemployment, as it affects the rural areas, has not yet received due consideration from this House. We have had repeated speeches and Debates in connection with unemployment, and eloquent pleas for the huge industrial areas, but, so far as unemployment affects the individual in the rural areas, it is just as great a tragedy to the individual there as it is to the individual in the big industral area. Proper facilities are not being given at the present time for the payment of unemployment benefit and as regards the method of signing on at the Exchanges. In my constituency, individuals in certain districts who may be unfortunate enough to be unemployed have in some instances to travel nine miles for the purpose of signing on at one of the local Exchanges. It might be a wise policy, and in the interest of some of these unfortunate people, if some arrangement were made whereby they
could sign on and receive payment at the local post office. That would be a great advantage in the rural districts. Again, powers ought to be given to local administrative bodies to pay the full amount of wages payable in the district where they are carrying out by direct labour schemes for relieving unemployment. At present they are only empowered to pay 75 per cent. Surely we have now, after the long period of unemployment we have had, reached a stage when we ought to waive that point, and allow local authorities, where they desire to do so, to have the right to pay 100 per cent.
Consideration might also be given to rural areas and small boroughs. Peebles, for instance, has, I understand, appealed to the Ministry on three occasions for a grant for dealing with unemployment, but that appeal has been turned down, on the ground that the unemployment has not been of sufficient magnitude in the town to justify a grant. In proportion, however, to the other districts, it is just as difficult for the small boroughs to provide the money to help to alleviate unemployment as it is in the larger areas, and, surely, they ought to get a grant on proportionate terms, in the same way as the larger areas with huge numbers of unemployed. Some of these matters might be seriously considered by the Government, and I hope that in dealing with the problem of unemployment, so far as the Ministry of Labour is concerned, we shall get a little more sympathy and a little more speeding up in regard to some of the applications in connection with schemes, and also, in the rural districts, a little fairer treatment in the future than we have had in the past.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): In the unfortunate absence of the Minister of Labour, who, as has been already mentioned, is laid by by illness, I think it will be expected that I should say something in reply to some of the criticisms which have been made today. This is, I think, the third or fourth occasion on which, in one form or another, we have discussed unemployment within the last few months, but that of itself is a matter for no surprise, because this great, complex, human subject of unemployment is one which is regarded with anxiety by every Member of this House,
in whatever quarter he sits, and I myself think that the House is entitled to the fullest information in the possession of the Government on this question of unemployment, on every occasion on which the Rules of the House permit of its discussion. I consider it to be a fortunate circumstance that, the first time that I stand at this Box, it should be to make an attempt to give some information, and, perhaps, to dispel some doubts and to make clear what, perhaps, was not clear before, on matters relating to this question of unemployment. As has been already said quite truly, it is not open to us today, on this Consolidated Fund Bill, to consider the merits or demerits of the various Acts which have been passed dealing with unemployment. We cannot again travel over the ground over which we have travelled but a few days ago when we were discussing the Bill which, I believe, this very day will receive the Royal Assent. We are, however, at liberty to deal with the question of the administration of those Acts which exist, and the speeches and criticisms on this occasion have been almost entirely directed to questions of administration.
When we remember that there are 12,000,000 insured persons, and when the live register is what we know it to be, it is not surprising that this huge, complex machine should be subject to criticism from time to time. That is very natural, and I am sure I speak for the Minister when I say that we welcome criticism, and particularly criticism in the spirit of that of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), who, obviously, made suggestions which he thought would be helpful and would improve the administration. I hope that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Westwood), who spoke last, will forgive me if I do not enter with him into a discussion on the old question of the Scottish deer forests. That is a question on which my hon. and gallant Friend who represents the Scottish Office is much more qualified than I am to give an opinion. I hope, also, that the hon. Member will not think me discourteous if I do not deal with one of the other points on which he laid emphasis, namely, the question of Empire settlement. That, however, is for a different reason. The question of Empire settlement is, I understand, to be a topic of separate discussion
on this Consolidated Fund Bill, and, therefore, the observations which the hon. Member made in that regard will be more relevant to that discussion, and accordingly I will not take up the time of the House by attempting to deal with it. The other points to which the hon. Member referred in the latter part of his speech, in regard to the treatment of rural areas, and his proposal with regard to the Post Office are, of course, proposals which I will bring before the Minister, and I will see that the Minister is seized of the hon. Member's views.
Before I come to the speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham, I would just say this, with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camber-well (Dr. Macnamara), who has now left the House. Of course, it is perfectly true, and, indeed, it must be obvious, not merely to every student, but to the most superficial observer of this question, that the post-War problems of unemployment must be, for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave, among others, widely different in almost every aspect from the problems with which we had to deal before the War. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that schemes should be considered now, before the expiration of the operation of the Act which has just been passed, and I hope they will be considered now, dealing with the question of continuity of employment after a year next autumn. The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with the question of Empire settlement, but, for the reason that I have just given, I will not now detain the House by going into that matter.
The hon. Member for West Nottingham raised a number of quite specific points, and I desire at once to thank him for his courtesy in giving me notice of many of the points which he raised. The last question of which he spoke, namely, the question of what he will at once recognise as the Coventry case, is one which has already, by way of question and answer, been discussed in the House, and I am authorised to state, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, that it will be dealt with by him in the course of this Debate, and, in so far as any consultation is necessary or desirable between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health, such consultation
will take place. The first point dealt with by the hon. Member for West Nottingham was partially answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camber-well, namely, the question of the suitability of Employment Exchange accommodation. A great deal of what the hon. Member said with regard to the unsuitability of some of these premises is perfectly true, but let me remind the House, quite shortly, what the history of this matter has been. The firm Labour Exchanges—they are now known as Employment Exchanges— were opened no less than 13 years ago. That was when the attendance at these Exchanges was voluntary, and, therefore, the question as between 13 years ago and now is, in that respect, entirely altered. We have, by successive enactments, brought within compulsory insurance some 12,000,000 people, and, therefore, there is obviously all the difference in the world between 13 years ago and the present time. The hon. Member referred, I think, to the Aberconway Committee. There is now, I understand—

Mr. HAYDAY: It was the G. N. Barnes Committee of 1920.

Mr. BETTERTON: I am much obliged. There is still, I understand, an Interdepartmental Committee sitting which consists of representatives of the Treasury, the Office of Works, and the Ministry of Labour, and they frequently meet to consider how the accommodation can be improved. But in regard to the whole of this question, of course the difficulty is that the present time is not, a normal time. You have an immense amount of unemployment which you hope, and with good reason, will get less, so if you attempt to provide, at great expense, full and adequate accommodation for the numbers you have to deal with now, when unemployment goes down, you will be over-housed, and it will be found you have spent money which might be saved. I only mention that as some explanation for the charge which the hon. Member makes. With regard to a good deal of what he says, I agree, but he did not quite do justice—I am sure it was unintentional—to the Ministry of Labour when he said nothing had been done, because a good deal has been done. In 1920 the Treasury fixed the standard of
accommodation with regard to Employment Exchanges, but that was based upon an unemployment rate of 4 per cent. Obviously, when you have an unemployment rate of very much more than 4 per cent., that standard becomes insufficient and inadequate, but, none the less, no fewer than 40 Employment Exchanges have been provided with standard accommodation on the footing I have just stated, so it is not quite accurate to say nothing at all has been done. Speaking generally, there is every attempt to improve these Exchanges. I think the hon. Member will agree that it would not be right to incur great expense until the industrial situation becomes more normal, especially, of course, in view of the need for economy in every department of administration.
The next point he dealt with was the question of unsympathetic treatment by members of the staff. On the whole, I do not think that charge can be substantiated. Of course, members of the staff, like everyone else, differ. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) quite truly said the other day that some people are born handsome and some are not, and when you have a large staff dealing with these questions, and when you remember that the staff at present employed at the Exchanges is no less than 8,700, it is obvious that they are not all blessed with the courtesy of the hon. Member for Nottingham. But complaints in respect of discourtesy are few, and if it should be brought to the notice of the Ministry itself that any cases of discourtesy on the part of the staff are well founded, the Ministry would at once take action. I remember the hon. Member himself, a month or two ago, paid a tribute to the attitude and the conduct of the staff as a whole.
The next point with which he dealt was the question of un-covenanted benefit. His point, as I understood it, was, that there was a lack of uniformity up and down the country as between one district and another. I think absolute uniformity under the system we have adopted is quite impossible of achievement, because we have deliberately given to these committees a wide discretion, and with the discretion, of course, you have given them a great sense of responsibility. You can give a general direction, but you cannot expect to get anything like uni-
formity up and down the country. There are no fewer than 320 of these committees, which contain altogether 7,500 members, and when you remember the difference not only in the industries themselves but in the classes of applicant, I think it will be agreed, although it is not possible to get absolute uniformity, that, on the whole, so far as it is possible under these different conditions to get it, there is not really any very great cause for complaint.
The next point the hon. Member made was the case of the overpayment of the 1s. in respect of a child. That overpayment may arise from one of two reasons. It may be that it arises where a wrong age has been deliberately given by the child's parent or it may arise in consequence of a mistake of the exchange itself after the child has reached the age of 14 or 16 as the case may be. Where the mistake is made owing to a wrong age being deliberately given by the parent I am sure the hon. Member himself would agree that the parent is entitled to no consideration, because he has committed a fraud on the authority, but with regard to the case where it has been paid after the child has reached the age of 14 or 16 by the mistake of the exchange itself, of course, the considerations are different. The Ministry have never prosecuted for recovery except where there is reason to believe there has been bad faith, or in other words, fraud. When I knew I had to deal with this point I asked for the actual form of the receipt signed by the parent when he gets the money, and I find he is required to say he has read the conditions set out on the back of the paper and understands them and is duly satisfied. One of the conditions on the back is that the child must be under the age of 14 or 16 as the case may be, so it is difficult for him, after he has signed a receipt which brings to his actual notice what the conditions are, to say afterwards that the mistake was not as least as much his.

Mr. HAYDAY: I acknowledge all that, but the money is there for the man and he is told to sign. There are very many signing at the same time and he is told to hurry up. Not one of these receipts is read by the average man. He is given the form with the age filled in in detail, and correctly, and yet he is prosecuted. Such cases have come before me as a magistrate
where the representatives of the Ministry have admitted that the age is correct. What I am asking is that as they review these things for the purpose of prosecutions, they might review them a little more frequently and automatically stop payment as the age limit is reached.

Mr. BETTERTON: I will certainly represent that to the Minister. There is a further point to which I would draw attention, that under the law as it stood until to-day—the Act comes into operation to-day—deduction might have been made in respect of an over-payment from future benefit coming to the man. Under the new Bill this cannot be done if the money was received by the applicant in good faith, which goes, at any rate, some way to meet the hon. Member's point.
The only other point of which I have a note was that of the gap. The hon. Member very properly altered the word "gap," which has now a technical meaning in connection with these Acts, so I will use the word "break." Instructions have already been issued to the local employment committees that, in dealing with claims for benefits under the extension granted by the Bill the other day, they may authorise benefit to the maximum number of weeks in eases where they are satisfied that the claimant should receive that amount of benefit, which goes a very long way to meet the hon. Member's point. This, of course, is a matter in the discretion of the committee itself, because they alone are in a position to judge of the circumstances of the applicant and they have local knowledge of the situation. Where the committee does not grant the full maximum amount, it is now a standing instruction to the Employment Exchanges that the claims shall be brought before the committee before the expiration of the period, and so there ought to be no delay whatever in the resumption of benefit after the break, and I am authorised to say this point will be emphasised in the instructions now issued to the Exchanges. I do not think there are any other points with which I desire to deal, and if there are any I have overlooked, the Minister of Health will be here, and he will no doubt deal with them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: While we regret the illness and absence of the Minister,
we are consoled, and I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his first appearance at that Box, and on the presentation he has made of the case, as also for the courtesy of his reply to all the detailed points raised by my hon. Friend. He referred to the fact that unemployment had come up already on three or four occasions during the Session. If I had my way, nothing else should ever come up for Debate in this House, because this is the most important question that not only this House, but any body of men in this country, can possibly discuss. We seem too often to deal with the unemployed question as though it affected only the unemployed. It would be bad enough if that were true, but it is by no means the full extent of the effect of unemployment. Unemployment is a curse not only to the unemployed, but to all those who have still got jobs. It deprives them not only of their full wage, but it deprives them of their manhood as free citizens in a free country. So long as we have, as we have to-day, 1,250,000 people unemployed, the men who have jobs cannot call their souls their own. Every week, when Friday comes round, every man in the workshop and the mine is terrified lest he gets a note from the foreman and is turned on to the streets. So long as we have unemployment, such as we have to-day, we shall have a reign of terror in this country, and the people who have jobs will have to accept whatever terms, so far as wages or hours are concerned, are asked of them by those who are good enough, kind enough and gracious enough to give them employment.
Therefore, when we discuss the question of unemployment, we have not only in our minds the people whom the House has chiefly in mind, the people we see lined up outside the Employment Exchanges, the people we see going downhill mentally, morally and physically; but we are thinking of the effect of unemployment upon the whole community, the fact that it deprives the worker of the full reward of his labour, the fact that unemployment is the driving force behind the whole of our civilisation as we know it to-day, and that that unemployment is a whip used by the capitalist system to make the worker work. If it were not for unemployment, the worker would be able to bargain with his employer on equal terms; but while there are unemployed knocking
at the gate and willing to give half a crown to the foreman to be taken on, the worker is not bargaining on equal terms with the employer. He is not a free man; he is, as we say on these benches, a wage slave, and nothing can change his position so long as the unemployment problem is hanging round his neck.

Mr. WALLHEAD: That is why the employers do not want to change it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is not the only reason why we want this question debated in the House of Commons and on platforms in the country. That is not the only reason why at all our meetings, and they are very numerous, we talk of unemployment from beginning to end. We are up against this proposition, that when we hear hon. Members opposite dealing with the problem of unemployment, and talking about unemployment, it seems to us that all the time they are trying to make unemployment decent, and to preserve it at all costs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, you cannot do without unemployment. During the War, for instance, when they were combing out the engineering trade and taking every available man, I remember hearing one hon. Member protesting that the engineering industry could not be carried on without a 5 per cent. margin of unemployment. That is the real case in our present industrial system. You require a certain amount of unemployment in order to ensure that the trade unions will not raise the wages to any extent. During the War D.O.R.A. was invoked for that very reason and agreements were come to with the trade union leaders, all because there were two jobs for every man. Now that there are two men for every job, you do not require agreements, you do not require D.O.R.A., because wages sink automatically, trade unions lose their grip, and their finances, and become helpless, and the wage-earner is helpless, too.
It is inevitable that those people who profit by cheap labour should look at unemployment from the point of view, the humane point of view, of providing sufficient doles to keep the people alive, and to keep them reproducing their species; but the dole will never prevent a man from going on all fours to any man who is willing to offer him a job. That is the way hon. Members opposite look at it, but that is not the way we look at the problem. We look at unemployment, not
from the point of view of doles and maintaining unemployment decently, but from the point of view of seeing that there is work for everyone. As long as there is no work, the man who is out of work is depriving the man who has a job of justice and freedom. We want opportunities of work in this country, and we want those opportunities because it will help the worker to get the best wage that he can get, and to get the best conditions. Until we do get that, no legislation in the long run will be any good.
So long as we have in operation, as we have to-day, what we call the iron law of wages, so long as we have in operation that law which says that so long as there are two men for one job those men have either to compete for that job or starve, then, in spite of your trade unions, in spite of organisation, wages will gradually sink to the subsistence level. So long as we have that law in operation, what is the use of tinkering with remedial legislation? No matter what benefit we may give to the worker by legislation, so long as that law is in operation wages are bound to sink once more to the subsistence level. It is to break that law that we want to deal with the unemployment question, to get behind that law, and to do away with the causes of such an economic law, which depends upon two men being after one job, without a chance of any freedom of occupation and without being in a position to bargain on equal terms with the employer. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about foreign competition? "] That is an admirable case in point. The cry of the tariff reformers used to be all about unemployment. They talked about unemployment they advocated heavy tariffs on goods imported into this country in order to make more work. I presume that is the argument behind the mind of the hon. Member. Let me illustrate the point further. Society, as I see it, consists of a pillar composed of the useful productive workers, and on the top of the pillar rests the burden, not only of the idlers, but of those who are doing useless work. Our solution of the question must, therefore, confine itself to increasing useful productive work, and adding to the amount of useful work in the future. The tariff reformers would see a market gardener out of a job, and they would say to him: "My poor friend, are you
out of work? If you will only allow the Prime Minister to have his way we will put a thumping big tariff on tomatoes."

Mr. SPEAKER: Tariff reform would require legislation, would it not?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am not quite certain that it would.

Mr. SPEAKER: At any rate, it would require a Finance Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I will not be led away into the Tariff Reform argument. We have to confine our attention to useful productive work. If we simply make jobs for people, that does not solve the problem. That simply acids to the load on the top, in so far as the tariff argument goes, but it does not help the situation. It does not help the situation when various schemes are brought forward for relieving unemployment. It does not help, for instance, if you put people to sweep the streets by hand when it could be done better and cheaper by machinery. It does not help by digging canals, if those canals are not an economically sound proposition. We must increase the opportunities for useful productive work, and nothing else. I have heard it suggested that we can solve the whole problem of unemployment by giving every man £5 every week—a nice, brand new, crisp £5 note. That sort of solution is frequently put forward in other forms by interested parties. We are told that if we subsidise an industry that industry will develop and employment will be found. We are told that if we guarantee overdrafts to Manchester merchants in the cotton trade that they will be able to finance further exports to India. We have been told, and we shall be told tonight, that if we only spend £3,000,000 or £30,000,000 a year on emigration that we shall solve the problem of unemployment. Nothing of that sort which costs money is going to solve the unemployment problem, if that money is spent in a less productive way than it would have been spent by the people from whose pockets we take the money.
We have to look upon all these things that are put forward from the point of view of hard, sound economics. The one way in which we can help to solve the problem of unemployment is by increasing the opportunities for useful productive work. In that splendid speech of
the hon. Member for Peebles and Salkirk (Mr. Westwood), he illustrated one way in which further opportunities for useful productive work could be found in Scotland; but in every single case that we can think of the useful work we want to see begins by the application of labour to the land. In every case where you give the primary trades the chance of getting their hand in, the job does not finish there. They do their part of the work, and then they pass on the job to other members of the community to complete the process of manufacture which they have begun, and to distribute the goods which they have made. So we say that not only is the unemployment problem the cause of poverty, low wages, and wage slavery, but that the land question is at the root of the unemployment question.

Orders of the Day — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel PAGE CROFT: My hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me if I am unable to reply to what he has said, because I think it is understood on this occasion that one group of discussion has gone by, and I must turn to another subject, although I would have liked to have crossed a lance with my hon. and gallant Friend on that particular subject. These two questions do to a very great extent hang together, and the House will agree that the speeches which have come from the benches opposite this evening, and more especially from the right hon. Member for Camber-well (Dr. Macnamara) have caused us to realise that we must leave no stone unturned to try to alleviate the great sufferings of which we have heard to-night.
When I raised this subject of Empire Settlement last year, I found that it is a question which really is regarded as a non-party question. There are, of course, different interpretations, and we may hear of criticisms of this aspect or the other, but, generally speaking, it is a non-party question, and since last year no fewer than 180 Members of Parliament of different parties have expressed to me personally their great interest in this question and their desire to see the matter thrashed out. Therefore, I make no apology for again raising the matter this year. May I very briefly ask the House to consider what are the facts of the case at the present time We have 1,300,000 unemployed people in this country. We have another 1,000,000
persons, young persons, between the ages of 14 and 18 years who will very shortly be entering the labour market; many of them are desiring to enter the labour market now. That brings the total to 2,300,000. In addition to that, the excess of births over deaths is no less than 300,000 per annum. This constitutes a problem which I submit is the greatest internal problem that we have ever had to consider.
7.0 P.M.
As my hon. and gallant Friend says, it is a question which he makes no apology for discussing three or four times in one Session, and which ought to be discussed every day. From my point of view, I can only say that my sincerity is equal to his, great as his is, on this subject. I submit that when you add up these figures it is the primary reason why the Labour party's fears are so great, namely, that you have many men after every job, because we have a number of unemployed in this country such as we have never had before, and the volume of which it is impossible to argue you can absorb under any system, capitalist or social. The consequence is that we have to look at it from a different point of view. Three years before the War emigration from this country had reached a very high figure. I am not sure that it was not rather too high. The fact remains that in those three years 1,380,000 persons left our shores to try their luck in countries new. It is perfectly obvious that had this flow of emigration gone on we should have had no problem of this gravity at the present time to consider, but emigration practically ceased from this country, and that cessation is primarily responsible for the unemployment position, and consequently for the terrible congestion of housing in this country. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the gentleman to whom, in the long run, we shall have to talk on these subjects. I am sure he will be the first to admit that unemployment and housing are the two great problems demanding the greatest financial attention at the present moment, and are likely to continue so for many years to come.
I ask him to consider this all-important question. Unless we are going to act with unprecedented vigour in regard to it, my own view is—I hope I am not a trembler on these questions—that we are approach-
ing a menace of unemployment finance and also of housing which will force a crisis, the gravity of which no man can measure. I cannot conceive how you are going to grapple with this question if the plain figure facts I have given to the House are correct. On the other hand, if normal emigration were likely to start again, this problem would be largely settled in something like five years. Let us face facts, however. There is no sign of that normal emigration recovering for some years to come. There is nothing more cruel than to go round this country and to encourage people to emigrate to the Dominions unless there is a job for them at the other end. It is fatal, for it defeats the whole object in view. Let us face the fact that at the present time, in all the great cities and towns in the Dominions, there is a glut in the labour market. That is why I submit, with all the sincerity I possess, that we really must go all out for the establishment of new settlements within the Dominions in order that we may develop new territories under the British flag.
What is being done, and what can be done? At the present time emigration to Canada has practically ceased. I have been trying very hard to get one or two fellows out to Canada lately. One of them happened to fight in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. He lost an eye fighting for the British Empire. He had the promise of a job in Toronto, but he was not allowed to go out—although I had managed to provide him with the money —because of the health certificate of his wife. I do not say that Canada is unwise to make very strong emigrant regulations as long as she has a glut on her labour market, but I do say that that is no reason whatever why the development of new settlements should not take place. It can only be an advantage to the Dominions overseas if we are to cooperate with them in building up new communities of civilisation in undeveloped territory within those Dominions. Australia—I think hon. Members will agree who recently have had an opportunity of meeting the Prime Ministers of two or three of the States of Australia—although it is not a very largo movement, is actively engaged in creating new settlements to assist us in solving our problems, and at the same
time to enrich those States to which they are welcoming the settlers. Although it is not a very large matter, it is only fair to say that it is really a considerable financial undertaking on the part of those States. We have heard of these definite plans for settlement in New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia, and certainly, in regard to the first two, I am convinced that they are on sound foundations.
I want to ask the Government a direct question. I am very glad to be able to address the question to my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, because I know that he is sympathetic in all questions concerning the British Empire; although, I rather regret, as I shall show in a minute or two, that I cannot ask the question of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. Are we co-operating in this matter with the State schemes in the States of Australia that I have mentioned? Are we prepared to undertake to contribute that financial assistance for which they have asked us, in what I can only describe, and I think hon. Members will agree with me, as the generous proposals they have made? The second question is, in view of the pledges which were made at the time of the General Election by every one returned on this side of the House, in answer to the clarion call of our leaders, what steps are the Government taking for a real big scheme of Empire settlement? Have they a cut and dried plan ready, or are they drafting such a plan to lay before the Imperial Economic Conference, when it is held, as I hope it is going to be held, later in the year? They may have some great scheme, and very likely we have not been told; but the fact remains that, unless such a scheme is worked upon, it will mean a year's or two years' delay after the Imperial Conference is held. I have very briefly referred to the schemes in Victoria, New South Wales and elsewhere, and I ask His Majesty's Government this question. Have they endeavoured to approach the other States of the British Empire with a view to having similar settlements in those parts? I believe that it could be done. I believe that it is good business. I do not, for one moment, want to oppose any sane and sensible proposal, such as came from the Labour
Benches to-night that we should spend more money on afforestation. It is far better to spend it on that than on unnecessary public works if you have to choose between the two. After all, the trees will mature in days to come, and you will get some of the money back. The advantage of all schemes of Empire settlement is the fact that in every case, if you have the will power, the driving power, and the finance, all your money will come back in the long run.
I suggest, first of all, that His Majesty's Government should send a Commissioner or Commissioners, with pretty wide powers, to every State in Australia, to every Province in Canada, to New Zealand, and to South Africa— although I admit that the chances in South Africa of getting a move on just now are rather smaller. Will they not send a Commissioner to those countries, in order to consult on the spot, and see if we can speed up our plans by discussing schemes, giving those Commissioners power to approve, subject to the financial sanction of Parliament, certain definite schemes? I submit that they should set out with a definite end in view. That is, that in every State and Province of the two great Dominions, and in New Zealand, we should go for a definite policy of 10,000 settlers. If you take New Zealand as a unit, and the Provinces of Canada, and the States of Australia, that makes in all 13 units, amounting to something like a definite plan of 130,000 new settlers. It would require, first of all, organisation on a very large scale at the other end, but it has been done in Victoria and New South Wales, and why cannot it be done in the other States and Provinces? It also would require organisation at this end. For that reason I am convinced that if you are going to organise on these lines, far and away the best method is to do it on a territorial basis, so that you will not be asking the people of this country to go out into the blue, away from their friends. You should organise it on the, county basis, so that the men in Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Yorkshire, or Lancashire can go out together, in companies, as comrades and pals, in order to make new homes surrounded by their friends.
I also suggest that these settlements must be segregated from the existing interests. Otherwise, you are going to
have great hostility from the labour and vested interests in the Dominions. You must see that you are entirely free from the land speculators, who, in many cases — I hope there are no representatives of the Dominions in the House at this present moment, so I only whisper it in bated breath—might quite conceivably destroy any chance of your scheme if they once-got themselves connected with it. I want to say a word or two with regard to the finance of this question. I am going to speak very moderately, because I know-that the House is easily frightened on this question, although I believe that if we took a big paint brush we could do a very wonderful thing, if we had the courage, with this question, and could save a great deal of money. In those schemes to which I have specifically referred—in the irrigated areas and the Murray River district in Australia—the figure was indicated to us that £1,000 per head per settler was required. In approaching all the other States and Dominions, I suggest that the Imperial Government should pay one-third of the cost, the Dominion and the Commonwealth Government one-third, and the States and Provinces one-third.
This money, let it always be remembered, would be a loan against the the security of the land, which I suggest, in all these cases, we ought to try to arrange should be gift territory from the Dominions concerned. If you take the figure I suggested just now, of 130,000 settlers, it would really moan that we should have to find in this country one-third of the proportion of the expenses of building houses, preparing the land, and starting the settler. That would amount to something like £33,000,000, which would probably be spread over three years. Interest at 5 per cent, on that sum of money would amount to £1,600,000 per annum. Supposing that with 130,000 settlers you immediately caused employment—I do not think that it is an exaggerated claim—for, say, 100,000 people in this country who are at present receiving relief, that would be an approximate saving to the nation of something like £5,000,000 per annum which would be a net gain in annual charges of £3,400,000. It must be clear that from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer alone in the long run he is going to gain, for he is going to get his capital expenditure back in addition.
Many of my hon. Friends are anxious to know why the Empire Settlement Act has been taken from its natural parent the Colonial Office and placed in the hands of the Overseas Trade Department. A great many hon. Members have realised this fact with astonishment, because it seems to us that the Overseas Trade Department, which is specially intended for extending British trade in every part of the world from Iceland to China, is a Department which must be fully occupied on the lines of its work, and it is difficult to understand how that Department could have been chosen to deal with the great specific question of Empire settlement. We think that the problem is so vital and so big that it deserves better consideration than that. We submit that it is so big a question that if possible it ought to have a Ministry of its own. We realise the hostility to forming new Ministries, on the grounds of economy, but we say that even if that is so surely we can have a representative at the Colonial Office to look after the affairs of Empire settlement in this House and look after administration. I say this without the smallest criticism of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Buckley) the head of the Department, because if we wanted someone to fill that place obviously we would look for him, but if he is doing this other job it is hardly to be expected that he can deal also with the equally great problem of Empire settlement.
The view of a great number of Members of this House it that a large proportion of our population have got to decide whether they are going to emigrate or, I will not say starve, because that is impossible so long as we have the present system of relief, but lead what is really a hopeless life. At present you have a large portion of our people, the flower of our race, some 300,000 ex-service men under 30 years of age, who have seen no work for two years. Those men are bound to deteriorate. They are losing hope. Their pride is sinking, and even if it was not a good investment I believe that everyone would agree that we ought to do everything in our power to assist them. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) said, there are two things to be considered. On the one hand there is this hopeless despair. On the other hand you
have a chance of bringing relief. There is no question of trying to persuade any man or woman to go against his will, or any mother or father to send his children away against his will, but if they think that the future is hopeless then we do say let us give the citizens of this country a chance.
It is a question of throwing a life-belt to our fellow-countrymen who are drowning in a sea of tribulation, and are likely to be overwhelmed. If the facts are as we have indicated, is it too much to hope that the Labour party will join with us in this great movement I An hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am inclined that from his point of view it might be a bad business. His principles might not find such great favour if the unemployed people found a chance of employment overseas, but from the point of view of the Labour party, who have said that the whole condition of the workers is being kept down, because there are two men applying for every job in this country, are they satisfied that the country will be able to absorb the unemployed labour at present in this country, and, if rot, will they join with us in a great national non-party schema of reconstruction?

Colonel ALEXANDER: I rise for the first time to contribute, though only in a humble way, to the important Debates in this House. I hope that hon. Members will be sympathetic and not too severe in their criticisms, because I realise that my faults and imperfections may be many, and that my good qualities, in the eyes of hon. Members, may be few. Let me at the outset assure the House that I do not lay any special claim to statesmanship. I believe that it was Napoleon who said that to be a great statesman you must have your heart in your head, and I believe, at least so my doctors tell me, that my heart is still in its right place. I do not make any claim to great wisdom. There is a proverb which says, "Wise men rarely talk." I hope that hon. Members, after giving me their indulgence of listening to me, will not consider that I have departed from the path of wisdom. Above all, let me assure the House that I make no claim to greatness, because I believe that it was Emerson who said that to be great is to be misunderstood.
It was a very short time ago that I heard the fair and Noble Lady the
Member for Plymouth say that if ever she was grateful to the Lord for having been created a woman it was during her first two years in this House, because, said this Noble Viscountess, whenever she got up to speak she was thankful that hon. Members could not see how her knees were trembling. If I may, I would like to add that I too am grateful to the Lord for having been created, be it only, of course, just an ordinary man, but I am still more grateful for the privileges and custom of this house in not compelling some of us, at Lily rate, to appear here in our national characteristic tartans and kilts, because I can assure the House, if it is not already apparent, that my knees, too, are very shaky at the moment.
I know that we are deeply absorbed at present in the grave problems of Europe, and in the many serious problems at home. But during my short time in this House I have often asked myself have we as yet rally faced the most difficult problem at home, and are we not at times inclined to rely on somewhat temporary and small measures for the solution of our greatest problem of unemployment and Empire development. One appreciates that the markets of Europe, in consequence of the War have been very much disorganised, and in some cases indeed they have been completely destroyed, while the manufactures of some of our largest industries at home are being excluded by certain of our great Allied nations by the introduction and enforcement of prohibitive tariffs, tariffs, I submit, infinitely higher than were ever in existence before this great War. Our own Empire markets, too, have been greatly reduced, not only owing to the heavy war expenditure, but to my mind more so by the cessation of the desirable inflow of British capital and settlers from our Mother Country.
Our emigration before the War—and I believe that these figures are accurate—to our overseas Dominions and abroad numbered about 350,000 people per year From the years 1914 to 1920 inclusive our total emigration to our overseas Dominions did not exceed 340,000 people, instead of 2,100,000 which it would have been at the old rate. The result, I submit, is obvious. Allowing as we must for the 750,000 people who have made the greatest sacrifice of which humanity is capable for the sake of human liberty and justice, we nevertheless
have a surplus for those six years alone of over 1,000,000 people in this country, and that surplus is being augmented yearly by an addition of some 400,000. It is indeed a very grave problem. I would like to ask the Secretary or State for the Colonies and the Leader of the Labour party, who I am sorry is not in his place, what is there in the state of our markets to-day and in the state of Europe to make us believe that we can absorb that large unemployable surplus population within the near future?
The question of unemployment was discussed to-day, and one hears it discussed on every occasion in this House. The problem of Empire settlement must at the best of times, apart from the natural geographical and industrial conditions of a country, depend upon the wise and proper distribution of the people in a country. The population of the British Empire to-day, I submit, is badly distributed, and I make this submission on two fundamental grounds. First of all, I say it is wrongly distributed at home, as between our industries and our land and agriculture. Secondly, it is wrongly distributed as between the Mother Country and our overseas Dominions. If we take the statistical returns, hon. Members will see that in Great Britain to-day we have a population of 460 people and over to the square mile. What have we in our overseas Dominions? If you take Canada, we have 2.7 people to a square mile; if you take Newfoundland, we have 1.5 persons; if you take the great Commonwealth of Australia, we have 1.8 persons, and the Dominion of New Zealand has 11.6. We know, and great statisticians, great writers, and economists tell us—even Sir Rider Haggard points out very rightly, I think —that the Commonwealth of Australia alone can readily absorb and maintain a population of at least 50 millions of people, and Canada a number equally as great, if not, indeed, greater. To find, therefore, a solution, we must come to a more equitable and just distribution of our population. In other words, the master key to the solution of Empire settlement, and unemployment rests first of all on the transfer of a certain section of our industrial population at home from our industry to our agriculture; secondly, the transfer of a large number of our unemployable surplus population from this country to our overseas Dominions.
[An HON. MEMBER: "Why don't you go? "] The hon. Member asks me why I do not go. Perhaps I may be allowed to tell him that I was brought up there. [An HON. MEMBER: "You came back! "] I am always proud to come back to the Mother Country.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to a very able speech by the Prime Minister of Western Australia, which he delivered last year. He said that his country consisted of 624,000,000 acres of land, and yet the total population to-day is no greater than 330,000 people—a population almost equal to that of the City of Hull. His country, he said, could, if even reasonably populated, supply sufficient wheat to feed the whole population of Great Britain, and yet to-day we are one of the largest purchasers of that commodity from the United States and from some of the South American Republics. His country, in addition, he said, had large deposits of tin, lead, copper, gold, and many other materials. Yet, with all these attractions, his country was practically empty. The 330,000 people that are populating Western Australia to-day, he said, could produce no more, because they already worked to the utmost of their capacity. What was needed in Western Australia—and I am repeating the words of the Prime Minister—was a steady inflow of British settlers and capital, so that within the next few years the population of that country, he hoped, would number 2,000,000 people. "Come to us, where men exist as equals," and while there are no capitalists to speak about, they equally have very low taxation, because they have no unemployed or poor people to maintain in Western Australia— [An HON. LABOUR MEMBER: "I have a brother there! "] Perhaps the hon. Member may follow his brother's example and go there, too. [HON. LABOUR MEMBERS: "And come back like you did! "] And why not! What is needed to cure unemployment in this country—and I hope hon. Members will take it seriously—what is needed to bring about. Empire development, is a real policy of Empire settlement and migration on a large scale. Both of these must be worked simultaneously, because hon. Members will appreciate that the capacity of the Oversea Dominions, speaking generally, to absorb large industrial populations, must of necessity depend upon their own industrial
and agricultural developments, so as to overcome any possible objection that may be raised by their own industrial community against the possible inflow of competitive labour from any other country.
Let me, as briefly as I can, within the short time allotted me, illustrate how wise and proper it would be for us to concentrate to a much greater extent than we have done hitherto, on Empire development and settlement. If you take the matter from the economic point of view—and I am taking the figures of 1913, as being the year before the War—you will find that the exports of British manufactures from this country to our Oversea Dominions and the rest of the Empire amounted to £195,000,000. If you take for the same year British manufactures exported to Spain, to Italy, to France, to the whole of the Scandinavian countries, to Germany, to Russia, and even to the great United States of America, the total came only to £157,000,000. If you take the figures for 1921, you will find that our exports of British manufacture to the whole of the British Empire came to £298,750,000, while our exports to the countries I have just enumerated for the same year came only to £173,000,000. There is a great difference in favour of the British Empire as against foreign countries, including the United States and Germany.
The population of our Oversea Dominions to-day is barely 16,000,000, and yet those 16,000,000 people have purchased more in total and per capita than the combined populations of 200,000,000 people in Europe. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches were advocating with a great deal of energy the resumption of trade with Russia. In pre-War days, let me tell you, our total trade with Russia did not exceed 2s. 2d. per head. That was in 1913. In 1921 our total trade with Russia was 3d. per head, against the British Dominions £6 15s. per head, and in some cases even more. Hon. Members say, "Why concentrate on the British Empire, when you have Europe at your door?" Let me assure the House that there is a great future for trade within the Empire to-day. It is waiting for us, if we are wise enough to take it. I do not say that we should not trade with Europe. By all means do all the trade you can, but let us above all hold
on to what we have, and develop it in the Way in which it is possible, so as to make us self-supporting.
Let me give you as an illustration the United States. In 1865 America had barely a population of 33,000,000 people, a population at that time almost equal to the population of Great Britain and our Overseas Colonies. America was recovering from four and a half years of a great Civil War, her financial indebtedness was colossal, but she faced the future bravely, and in barely 55 years America undisputably became one of the greatest industrial and commercial countries in the world, with a population of 110,000,000 people. I say very frankly to this House that in wealth, in potentiality, in natural resources, in lumber, in agriculture, in water power, there is as much within the British Empire, if not more, as there is in the, United States of America, and yet what do we find? America has prospered on British capital, and up to the present time, to a great extent on British settlers. Why? Because America concentrated upon her resources. America formulated a sound industrial policy, and we in Great Britain and our Dominions were drifting. Thank God, we have plenty of oceans to drift upon!
The difference between the two countries, to my mind, is this. America has a definitely-formulated, well-decided industrial policy. Great Britain has not. If you take our Oversea Dominions, you will find that until quite recently, and even to-day, some of our Overseas Dominions are running policies, in a point, one differentiating from another. I would like to say that perhaps a great deal of credit is due to the Dominion of Canada for initiating, as it did quite recently, an economic agreement with Australia, whereby a greater preferential treatment and a greater exchange of commodities will take place between those two great Empire Sister Nations. If our Imperial Government at home would concentrate and bring the policies of our four great Oversea Dominions in still closer co-operation; if the surplus products of our Oversea Dominions could find a more appreciable ready market within our own home, and if, indeed, some of the surplus of one Dominion could be brought to another in a much greater quantity than is the case
at present, then I say the Imperial Government would have achieved a great Measure. One hears a great deal about what we intend to do, but may I point out the greatness of the resources in our Overseas Dominions and how much backward we are? In very name, even, we are backward. We have a Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who deals with foreign countries. We have a Secretary of State for Home Affairs, who deals with the Home country. What have we got for our Dominions? We have a Secretary of State for the Colonies, although we are no longer Colonials. Our Colonies have become great Dominions. May I humbly submit to the House, and to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, whether it would not be wiser, instead of having a Colonial Secretary, to create a Secretary for Empire Affairs, so as to bring him into collaboration with the other Secretaries of State?
A great deal was said a few weeks ago by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Muir). He said it was diabolical and damnable of the Government to introduce any policy which would help migration from this country of children between the ages of 11 and 17. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear. ".] I would like to say this to the hon. Labour Members who so proudly say "Hear, hear." There is more danger of the happy homes in this country being broken up for the lack of proper incomes with which to pay the heavy rates and taxes; there is more danger of the happy homes of this country being broken up, in so far as the youths are concerned, because you are unable to give them the huge spaces and the healthy surroundings that they require, than by sending them overseas, not to strange countries, but to your own land, to people of your own blood, and under your own flag. Hon. Members have said that there is no spiritual provision made for these children. I have too much respect for the hon. Members on the Labour Benches to criticise them too severely, but I will say this much. If any of the Labour Members will take the trouble to go across the Dominion of Canada, or the Commonwealth of Australia—[HON. MEMBERS: "We have been there."] That accounts for at least a few of the good manners they still have. Hon. Members perhaps, will listen, and see how they could have improved themselves if they had gone there as youths.
If they had gone there at an early age I am certain they would have had a different opinion from that of those hon. Members who say in this House that there is no spiritual or other provision made there for children. Children in the Oversea. Dominions are being taken care of in the highest degree possible, whether it be from a spiritual point of view, or whether it be from a humanitarian point of view. Let me point out to the hon. Members on the Labour Benches that only last week the Deputy Minister of Emigration of Canada made a speech in the City of London, in which he stated that, out of 25 Barnado boys who went recently to Canada, no fewer than five of them had their own motorcars. I should like to ask the Labour Members whether in this country youths of the Barnado Homes can afford Ito travel in their own cars, even when they come to maturity. I do not, however, propose to be dragged into an argument of this kind in my maiden speech.
Have we so short a memory as to forget that, in time of need, our people from the Oversea Dominions came forth in very large numbers unflinchingly and unsolicited. Who of those who served with them can be hold enough to deny their splendid physique, their natural resourcefulness, their devotion to duty and their love for the Mother country? They did their duty unhesitatingly. They laid clown their lives unsparingly. Yet hon. Members are afraid to migrate because, they say, it means to go forth into exile. If those are the men who came from exile to fight for us, then the more exiles we have the prouder we ought to be.
I humbly submit that the total sum in connection with the Empire Settlement Act ought to be greatly increased. The sum of £3,000,000 set aside under that Act is entirely inadequate. It cannot do full justice to the measure by which it is intended to carry on emigration and Empire Settlement. We are spending to-day in relief work and unemployment pay about £100,000,000 per year. The whole of that sum is merely, I submit, a temporary remedy. It is, if I may say so, a local anæsthetic. It is a dangerous drug, which, if you will, may have the effect of temporarily killing the pain, but it does not really cure the malady. On the contrary, it imposes a heavy additional burden upon our already heavily taxed
capital. It undermines that self-reliance, that self-respect, that desire for work, and that pride in work, which is so essential to every worker in this country. It. saps the marrow from the very bone of industry.
I knows the policy I am advocating must, of necessity, mean a considerable expenditure of money, but I submit to this House that, whatever that expenditure might be—whether it be £15,000,000, £20,000,000 or £25,000,000 per year, whether it be by way of direct, loans to the Oversea. Dominions, or by way of direct contribution to the emigration policy of the country—it would be an expenditure which would more than fully justify itself, because it would permanently alleviate the suffering of the unemployed in this country. It would bring about the development of the British Empire and the development of trade within the British Empire. And it would do more than that. It would prevent at any future time a repetition of unemployment, on so large a scale as we have at present.
I would beseech this House to support this Government, or any other Government, which is ready to bring in a Measure, or which is ready to increase the Measure, of the Empire Settlement Act. The policy I am advocating is not a selfish policy. It is not a party policy. It is not even a Government policy. It is an inter-Empire policy which, if carried out, must have the effect of permanently improving the condition of the people of this country, and of further cementing the unity within the whole of our Empire. Alone, or almost alone, the Mother Country stands out to-day as a mighty rock amidst the drifting and stormy waters of the universe. No one, looking over the British race as it spreads itself before our mental can have any single doubt but what the greatest acts of statesmanship have already been achieved; and the monuments to those acts are to be found in the very pillars of the structure of our Empire. We cannot afford to ignore that great structure. We cannot afford to be satisfied with a policy of tranquility—a policy which, I submit, has been so much unnecessarily abused of late. Europe has emerged from a Great War. She may-recover her natural resources some day. She may even recover her wealth at some future time, but I doubt very much if she
will ever recover her unity and solidarity. The British nation has emerged from this War though still suffering, and heavily taxed as we are at the moment, yet solidly united what a commonwealth of younger communities proud of their great traditions, and loyal to the core to their King and to the Crown. I beseech this House not to forget, however, that, as a result of the Great War, the very pillars upon which this huge structure rests have been badly shaken. They need re-strengthening, and I say it is our duty—indeed, it is our obligation—as the Parliament of the Empire, to recement those pillars with British capital, with British labour, and with British initiative, for the good of the British race, nay, for the good of humanity at large. I believe the words of Cicero may well be applied to our great nation: "Our country is the common Parent of them all." By our exertions we have saved Europe. By our example we have made civilisation safe. Let us unite both, and make our Empire safe. Let our future objective, irrespective of Party, he our Country, our Nation, our Empire.

8.0 P.M.

Major Viscount SANDON: I feel sure I shall have the usual indulgence shown me from the House on addressing it for the first time, and I may say, my diffidence is not minimised by the knowledge that six direct generations of my forebears, in succession, have addressed this House before me. I must confess that when I listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Southwark (Colonel Alexander) I was impressed by the fact that those of us who have had the advantage of visiting the different parts of the Empire must come away with a very great conception of its resources. I felt considerable disappointment when I heard the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) give vent to the sentiment that the Conservative party and employers generally throughout the country were not deeply committed to every possible effort to cure permanently and temporarily this menace of unemployment, which is a menace to every section of the community. They will not accept it that our efforts on this side of the House to solve that problem are sincere
or genuine. I think we should be given every opportunity of pushing forward our ideals as to migration, as at least one direction in which we can contribute to the solution of this problem. I must say that one of the objections urged to our policy is the statement which was once made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), that after the War we were to have a land fit for heroes to live in. I do not in any way want to utter a taunt at any idealism which is expressed in these unidcalist days. When I say we have not realised that wonderful land, I do not mean in any sense to level it as a taunt at the right hon. Gentleman, but none the less we have to face facts, and half the trouble in our country is due to our failure in facing facts as they are. It is of no use to say that a man who fought in the War is entitled to have the best possible life in this country if the fact remains that he has not got it and sees no possibility of getting it.
We are faced with appalling distress and misery in this country, and both from the point of view of the man himself and from the point of view of the country as a whole, we must look for every means of increasing the happiness and utility of each individual man. To my mind, we are very much entitled to look in the direction of migration for a partial cure, at any rate, of these ills. When you have great bodies like the Y.M.C.A. and the Salvation Army taking up this work, then it cannot he said to be undemocratic. There is, as a result of the War, a tremendous consciousness among the men who fought that they want more elbow-room, that they are crowded out and cramped in every direction so long as they stay in a country where the competition is so severe, that only relatively a few can survive the struggle. Personally, I was brought up on the creed of the greatest happiness to the greatest number. We want to look at this question in that way and think out for ourselves whether or not emigration fits into that phrase, and whether or not by going out to the Dominions men will have more chances, higher wages, and healthier life and better conditions.
I hear it often said that there are many cases where people have found themselves in as serious a plight in oversea
Dominions as in this country, and I believe there are cases of that kind. But I, for one, would never countenance any form of promiscuous migration of people going out for no reason except that they were not satisfied with the way things were going on at home, and it is this promiscuous emigration which has caused the trouble. I believe every safeguard is, and should be taken by the Government to see that trades in which there is serious unemployment overseas are not further overstocked by having people of the same trade sent out from here. It. is a common thing in these days to quote the phrase, "the rich Australian uncle." But if you meet the people of your own acquaintance who have left this country 10 or 15 years ago you find that, relatively to the existence of their friends who have remained in the old country, they have become "the rich Australian uncle." It may be that I differ from the large majority of people who are keenly interested in this question of emigration in that I welcome the statement made by Lord Haig a few months ago. There is no one in this country who has contributed so much to the welfare of the ex-service men as the gallant Field-Marshal under whom we had the honour to serve during the War. I consider that, far from rendering a disservice, he rendered a great service to the Empire as a whole in calling attention to the present conditions of emigration. It is my belief that he was primarily responsible for the fact that the Government are now alive to the consideration that things arc not what they should be in this question of emigration and that there is a great deal more in it than putting down a certain sum of money and seeing that a certain number of people are sent out. I welcome this Committee of Inquiry which has been appointed by the Oversea Settlement Committee, and I agree that it is of the utmost importance to give them the fullest powers to make recommendations and see that they are carried into effect.
If we are to make emigration palatable to the people of this country, we must convince them that all proper steps are taken for their reception and distribution at the other end. Nothing could be more damning—if such a word is permitted in this House—to the cause of emigration than the many things that go on, lack of
a hot cup of tea, or a bun, or whatever it is, on arrival at the port. I do regard with a certain amount of alarm the fact that the authority which makes all the arrangements for emigrants proceeding overseas is not the same authority which carries out these arrangements at the other end, because, when you have divided authorities of that sort it makes it impossible to be absolutely sure that various things which are wrong will be put right. I am perfectly aware that there is a very considerable force in the argument that town-bred people are net the kind of people who are likely to make the best settlers in Canada, Australia, and so forth, but that is the problem we have to face. It is my belief that, it we can secure young men full of the spirit of adventure, which everyone has before they have seen too much of the world, and if we can send young married couples out with families to settle there and make good, we are putting emigration on the most hopeful basis possible. If we are going to send out people who have had to submit for many years to the grimness of life which exists largely in the big industrial centres of this country, they are not imbued with the hope and the happy outlook calculated to make the, best settlers under the some chat arduous conditions overseas.
I believe the emigration of children is not an aspect of this question which is palatable on the other side of the House, but I am convinced that if we send out children under such a scheme as that of the Child Emigration Society under which all their needs, physical, moral, educational and technical, are carefully attended to—I believe on these lines it is possible for us to proceed With absolute safety in emigration. I feel very strongly, also, that when we send out grown people to the Dominions we should not merely dump them out in the Bush and say to them. "Here are 100 acres; do the lest you can with them." That may be all very w ell for people who have been born and bred in that atmosphere and have lived in it all their lives. But for the English emigrant who is accustomed to closely-populated areas, the only hope is that he shall he surrounded as far as possible by congenial circumstances, that he shall have his club and his opportunities for recreation, his cinema and his dances, and, in fact, everything that we mean by group settlement. I believe that
that is a policy which is largely advocated now. Not only from the point of view of the man himself, but from the point of view of the highest Imperial considerations, it is necessary that we maintain ample communication, so as to bring the Dominion or Colony and the Home Country as closely together as possible, and make the 13,000 miles seem less than they are. I would have no enthusiasm for emigration if we were to send out only the man whom we might consider—quite wrongly in my opinion—to be most suitable for working in the Dominions, namely, the agricultural labourer. That is a class of people whom we want to increase rather than decrease in this country. We ought not to adopt a wholesale policy for the emigration of such people.
I hold that the Government might be even more enthusiastic than they are in making use of voluntary societies. In any event, so long as the State takes upon itself the main burden of emigration, from the point of view of organisation, we shall always come in contact with that most frightful of all gentlemen—I am not speaking from the personal point of view —the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that difficulty will remain, whatever Government is in power, and whatever our circumstances, whether we are living in days of wealth or in days of darkness. The voluntary societies have the will, the enthusiasm and the knowledge, and if they had more money they could extend the scheme of emigration in a way of which we have never dreamed hitherto. I would urge the Government to consider larger and larger grants to such organisations as Dr. Barnardo's Homes, the Young Men's Christian Association, the Church Army, the Salvation Army, and so on, which regard it as a personal affront of the most serious kind if they have to record any failure among their emigrants.
The other day I visited a London Employment, Exchange at which there were 7,000 to 8,000 registered. Believing that the Government made use of the Exchanges in working out the State's scheme of emigration, I inquired what the position was, and I was told with much rejoicing that it was really believed that eight or nine men had been selected to go overseas! I am afraid that I did not show the enthusiasm that was expected of me. When we have facts of that
kind put before us we are entitled to say that the scheme has not got the backing that it ought to have, and that it is not working quite as smoothly as it should in the interests of this country and the Empire. I would echo the words used by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft), when he complained of the transfer of the overseas settlement work to the Department of Overseas Trade. It is not in the direction of progress to have the work taken away from the Colonial Office and transferred to a Department whose main head is the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. At the same time I must give some qualification to my enthusiasm for the Colonial Office as the managers of the scheme. An hon. Member raised the question of the name of the Colonial Office. I have no wish to see the Colonial Office play any part in the affairs of the Dominions. It has already an enormous job in dealing with what are wrongly called the Crown Colonies, and that job is enough to occupy all its time. In my experience all that it is able to contribute is donkey work for the Dominions, work which does not arouse enthusiasm.
The kernel of the problem is the question of finance. Although I know that practically every Member of this House has been returned pledged to the strictest economy, yet I would not be afraid to return to my constituents and to say that I voted for increased expenditure on emigration. When one is dealing with a question of profit and loss, it is fundamental that one should draw a clear and distinct line between waste and economy. Waste is waste all the world over, just as much in prosperous times as in other times. But when you have an expenditure of money which must very soon show a large financial credit to this country and the Empire, you are entitled to regard it as a thoroughly sound financial proposition. That is the aspect of the case which would put before the Treasury. Here you would have productive money—productive in the sense that the people you send overseas will become more prosperous there than they are in the old country. They will then be able to make more use of British goods. We are already the chief suppliers of goods to the Dominions, and if we were able to double the population of the Dominions by sending out people who would eventually become comparatively well-to-do, we
should be doing great good, not only to those people and to the Dominions, but to the manufacturers and workers of this country.
If we could put that point of view before the Treasury, it might be persuaded to look beyond its nose—the next Budget—and foresee the enormous addition which would be made to the prosperity of this country 10 years hence; it might be persuaded to look to the fact that, although now there is a hubbub in Europe because the French are making mistakes as some of us believe on the Ruhr and our industries are severely affected, yet we can make a permanent and growing maket for our goods in the Dominions, and if we look at it in that light we are bound to be convinced that the money which we are now spending on emigration will repay itself in the near future. I was very glad to see in the Overseas Settlement Report an expression of the hope and expectation that the big Corporations and the counties would take up this question of emigration. I should like heartily to re-echo the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth when he put before us the great advantagé of people from one locality going out together on the principle of the territorial battalions during the War. If cities like Manchester and Birmingham could have their own schemes and send out their own batches of settlers it would greatly add to the prospects of success. It is urged sometimes that by inviting the people of this country to proceed to the Dominions we are derogating from their liberties. I do not believe anyone who has visited the great Dominions will deny that the liberty and the freedom enjoyed in those Dominions is as great as the liberty and freedom which we know in this country. I consider there are two distinct sorts of freedom. There is the sort which expresses itself in the cry of "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternté," and ends at that—that is the last one hears of it. There is another sort of freedom which is not talked about and which does not wave flags, but which gives the maximum amount of individual right and privilege to the rank and file of the people. I have seen many countries of all sorts including republics and monarchies, but nowhere does one find that genuine liberty to which I refer in a more marked
degree than in this country and in the Dominions.
If we look at this matter from the broader point of view of colonisation, consider what has been the contribution of the English speaking race in comparison with other races. Look at the Spanish attempt to colonise South America; they put their people there, but those countries have been developed entirely by the resource, individuality and initiative of British and other capitalists. On the other hand, look at the United States of America and our great. Dominions. These countries have worked out their own salvation. Their greatness have been achieved by their own effort, and they have not had to call in Spaniards or Dutchmen or anyone else to develop their resources. That marks the great difference—a difference which will commend itself to every Britisher—betweem the Latin civilisation and the British civilisation. But I believe the Empire cannot exist merely because of the fact that it happens to be ours. We can only maintain the countries which are under the flag whether Dominions or Crown Colonies by making it transparently clear to the public conscience of this country and the peoples of the world that these regions shall be devloped in the highest public interest to the utmost of their capacity, for the benefit and advantage of civilisation and also that not only shall the rights of the indigenous populations be maintained but that they shall receive the full benefit of the advance of civilisation. To my mind when the British Empire cm no longer fulfil that condition, when it can be said that a country would be better looked after by others than ourselves and the wealth of that country and the innate richness of the soil better developed, then we shall have no further claim or title to remain there. I do not advocate Empire Settlement from selfish motives by any means. I do not advocate it merely as a means of getting over our unemployment and other difficulties. In that connection I should like to quote from the Oversea Settlement Report:
 It is regarded rather as a means of remedying fluctuations of trade by developing the best markets of this country and permanently minimising the risk of unemployment here.
In spite of that consideration we are entitled to look at this matter in a much
wider aspect. If we do not populate our Dominions other people will in the future, and we are conferring a great privilege on the world by creating great communities imbued with British ideals of justice—those ideals which are so very distinct from the ideals advanced by other European countries. It was on the basis of those ideals, n my belief, that the League of Nations was founded. The League of Nations is essentially a British product. I was in Paris during the Peace Conference and I know it was, outstandingly, the work of the British Empire delegation—particularly, perhaps, the South African representatives—which made the League of Nations possible. That is the British Empire in a nutshell. It is contributions of that kind which we have made in the past, and which we are making at the present time, to the solution of the world's difficulties and by helping this emigration scheme we are bringing an increasingly large body of people under the influence of those ideals and propagating them throughout the length and breadth of the world.

Mr. BROTHERTON: One scarcely knows how best to address the House on a subject like this, when one has been newly transferred to the atmosphere of the House from the streets and the market places. I cannot for the life of me understand the type of mind which has been expressing itself during the last hour and a half on oversea settlement and emigration from this country. I have yet to be convinced that this country is too small or too undeveloped to carry its own population, and I am certainly convinced that millions of these people do not desire to leave it.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Nobody wants them to leave it.

Mr. BROTHERTON: Why are you talking so much about emigration, and about sending people overseas for settlement purposes, if you do not want them to leave the country? That is what I cannot understand. [Interruption.] As one who may have been in some respects a nuisance during the last 18 months' period of unemployment that I passed through before getting this job, I can understand certain people wanting to transport nuisances of the character of myself. Also, as a member of the unemployed organisation that has been
maligned so much in this House by hon. and distinguished Members of the House, I want to say that if you do not begin to adopt different means and methods from those which you have been trying in the past for the relief or the complete abolition of unemployment in this country, you are likely to find yourselves in a much more serious predicament than you have been in in the past. As one who has never been out of the country, and has never had any call to leave the shores of the finest country I know of, I want to say that this Government, if it wants to treat the subject of unemployment, wants to go about it by mobilising all its national resources. What to-day are its national resources? We have been told that there are 1,300,000 unemployed adult persons at present registered in this country. To me, they are a national resource that needs mobilising, and, in my judgment, it can he mobilised only by the representatives of itself, and that is the Government.
The Government, in 1914 and the following years of the disastrous War that we passed through, could mobilise all its forces with a view to accomplishing a certain object. Most of the gentlemen representatives in this House have uttered sentiments of great sympathy with the unemployed, but the Government itself positively refuses to organise them with a view to using them to produce the things that we all need. As one who had some experience during the period of the War of the organisation or mobilisation of the resources of the country, namely, the people, I say you could mobilise and organise, for the purpose of producing destroying things, munitions and implements of destruction, and to my sorrow I was for sonic years engaged in the manufacture of them, as an engineer working in the national factories, so that I know what is capable of being done by this organising ability that we have in our ranks. I know that the production of munitions was accelerated during the War by the mobilisation of the resources, the people, men and women, nationally, and provision being made for their producing the things that you were then wanting. Why cannot you do it now, instead of talking about emigration and that kind of thing? Is there not just as much need for you to organise the people to do the things that are staring you in the face to be done, and not only doing those things but many
other things that all of us could thoroughly enjoy?
We were promised during 1916–17 that you would so something, and you set up committees with a view to making arrangements for the after-War period, but all I ever saw out of those committees with all their fine schemes, was the issuing of a few pamphlets. In the investigations that were made, however, there were hints of possibilities of organising the resources of the Empire at home. For instance, there was great talk of huge electrical schemes throughout the country, and if you had gone forward, or if the present Government would go forward, with the development of the idea of electrifying this country and producing power, they might achieve wonderful results. If they would organise the resources of the Empire, both people and natural resources, they could produce electrical power cheaply, and what an advantgae and benefit it would be. You have dirty, filthy, murky streets in your huge towns that could be transformed by these electrification schemes and the using of the power that could be generated in a cleaner and better manner than is the case at present, and if you would go forward with schemes of that kind you would be able to employ hundreds of thousands of willing, skilful, capable men, who are idle and unemployed to-day, and whom we are having to keep for doing no work at all. That to me is a very foolish policy indeed. I want to see it altered and remedied. What did the ex-Prime Minister say on this question of emigration? Let me quote:
 Walking around the principal streets of our great cities you will see displayed advertisements calling attention to the allurements of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for British labour. There you will see the picture of a nice house with most beautiful surroundings. There you will see a large tract of land just before the harvest, thick with corn, blowing gracefully in the wind. There you will find cattle grazing on rich pastures, and there, again, you will see an orchard laden with fruit. You will not see a landlord anywhere.

An HON. MEMBER: Nor a gamekeeper!

Mr. BROTHERTON: As my hon. Friend says, nor a gamekeeper.
 During recent years these advertisements have attracted scores, nay, hundreds of thousands of our best labourers to find
a home across the sea. Point has been given to it by contrasting their experiences and the difficulties in the way of a decent livelihood for those at home.
These are not my words. Hon. Members are listening carefully and very patiently to them, and I hope they are sinking in, as they have sunk into some of our minds on these benches.
 Do you know when the land question will be settled in England; Scotland, and Wales? It will be settled when similar advertisements setting forth the attractions of settlement on British soil are displayed in some of the most prominent windows of the streets of every city and town in the land. Then you will have a picture and print assuring the British workman that he need not fly across oceans and continents in order to find food, freedom, contentment and plenty for himself, his wife, and his little children. They will be able to find it in the old homeland we love so well.
These words were spoken on 11th October, 1913. In September, 1914, other words were delivered by the right hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members will recollect what happened in August, 1914?

Mr. J. JONES: They all remember. They are drawing their pensions for it.

Mr. BROTHERTON: The right hon. Gentleman the ex-Prime Minister, in September, 1914, at Queen's Hall, I believe, said:
 The peoples will gain more by this struggle in all lands than they comprehend at the present moment.
Do hon. Members comprehend? They are appealing to us to leave our country. They could plead with us and our sons and brothers to defend that country because it was our country. Now they, and the Government itself, are trying to make us deny the country we love so, well, and to flee from it! We are not made of that kind of material. I am here to ask the Government to-night to develop the national and natural resources of this our own country by the organisation of industry on right and proper lines. We will help them to so organise for the good of the communities in the Empire. We are not enemies of-our country. We are riot traitors to it, that we should be threatened with being driven from our country by either this or any other Government. I want this Government to realise that the problem of unemployment is one that has made some of us keen and angry men because of the experience we have had of it.
Eighteen months of my life I tramped the streets of this country as recently as jus before I was sent to this job, and I am here to make the question of the unemployed one that shall have to be listened to. Thousands of the unemployed of Gateshead sent me here. They voted for me because I was one of them. Hon. Members looking at the Gateshead returns will know what that means. Defeated in the Khaki Election of 1918 by a 10,000 majority, I have come here with a 5,000 majority. That is a portent that hon. Gentlemen opposite, this Government, and hon. Members below the Gangway will have to consider. I hope the Government is going to take warning of what has been said again and again from these benches on the unemployed question, are prepared to take hold of it, and tackle it with the intention of remedying it.

Sir ALFRED MOND: The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Brotherton), who has just made such a very eloquent and interesting speech, has taken us rather far away from the subject under discussion. I rather regret that he adopts the attitude that there is antagonism between Empire emigration and intensive work in the development of this country. I wonder how he thinks the British Empire was ever created, and has ever grown up? How is it that the huge Dominions of Canada, New Zealand or Australia have grown up?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: By voluntary emigration.

Sir A. MONO: I will deal with that in a moment. I understand that now my hon. and gallant Friend, who is the leader of the Socialists, objects to State emigration. The hon. Member spoke as if the Government were driving people out of this country. Not at all. What the Government are doing, and what the late Government did under this Act, was to assist people who wanted to go to the Dominions to live an organised and better existence there than voluntary people could possibly find. That may be a food or a had policy, but there is no difference in the essential features, and all these rhetorics about driving people out of the finest country in the world, and all the attempts to contrast land settlement here, which is urgently required, and the development of electric
power in this country, of which I have often spoken, and which is now, I am glad to see, progressing, with the effect of putting our unemployed population to work here, are all beside the mark in dealing with this question. No one recognises that better than the chief leader of the Labour party himself, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), whom I am glad to see in his place. In the Second Heading Debate on the 26th April, 1922, when the present First Lord of the Admiralty introduced the Empire Settlement Bill, the working of which we are discussing, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting said:
 I hope that all of us recognise that within the Empire there are millions and millions of acres lying in a state of waste for want of population, and that, on the other hand, in this part of the Empire we have conditions of overcrowding which cannot be for the good health of millions of people, or in any sense serviceable as tending to improve the social and economic good of very large sections of the population. Therefore, I conclude that we all agree that it is very desirable to devise some plan for a wiser and fairer distribution of the population within parts of the British Empire." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1922: col. 592, Vol. 153.]
That is the leader of the Labour party, and the hon. and gallant Member had better discuss the matter with him. I would really ask hon. Members to look at the Empire as one great country. If Canada and Australia were not divided by the sea, but were attached to this country, would the hon. Member say that a man who was going from here to Canada was being driven out? Not at all. It is merely because of the water between, which possibly the hon. Member has never crossed. If he had, he would finally have got to Canada, and would have found it, not a strange land, but a land very much like this, with people speaking the same language. In reality these attempts to divide the British Empire are quite out of date. The world is too big now. When you can fly from here to Australia in six days, which we shall probably he able to do in the reasonably near future, you will be much nearer to Australia then than 100 years ago you were to Edinburgh. When you see the Empire in that sense, what is the use of hon. Members saying—

Mr. BROTHERTON: Tell the landowners to fly.

9.0 p.m.

Sir A. MOND: I daresay they will fly, but that is really beside the point which we arc discussing, and with which I want to deal. We are really contrasting two things which have no real contrast. Hon. Members who wish to develop this country will find no one more anxious to help them than I am, but on the other hand I am very anxious to help the Empire. The two things hang together. For good or for evil, England is an industrial country. England could not, and no one can pretend that it could, support a population of 43,000,000 people on its own area unless it had a huge export trade in manufactured goods. No economist has ever denied that fact, and our unemployment is largely due to the fact that the people who used to buy British goods can no longer afford to do so. What is the obvious thing to do? The obvious thing is to create markets for our goods, and the best market for British goods is the British Empire. The engineers of this country would be more fully employed if they could exchange their engineering work with people in our Dominions who are growing fond under more favourable conditions than are possible here. That is a better method than any other which could possibly be devised, and I do not see that anyone who thinks seriously about the matter can come to any different conclusion.
That being so, the whole point that we are discussing to-day is how the Government are doing the organisation. The hon. Member has said that they are not organising well in regard to unemployment in this country. Let us see whether they are organising this question properly. I want to ask, and no doubt we shall be told on behalf of the Government, how far the money which Parliament has voted is being spent, and with what rapidity progress is being made. It is most important that progress should be made as speedily as possible. We have in this country a large youthful population, very largely owing to the War, who are more or less untrained to any particular industry, and who, unfortunately, are largely numbered in the ranks of the, unemployed. They form excellent raw material for the wider and freer life which the Dominions offer them. What is being done to train them? It is very important that training centres for agricultural work should be set up, either here or in the
Dominions, in which an intensive training can be given, which no doubt will be quickly responded to. How much are we doing in that direction, and how much money is being spent on that object?
In a very interesting report made by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, which was published in February, 1922, quite a number of schemes were stated to be under discussion by the different Dominions, some were in progress, and some were the subject of negotiation. Could we be told how many of those schemes have been concluded? When I was taking an interest in the matter as a Member of the Government, I always found that there were many schemes under discussion but what, never seemed to happen was that schemes were actually being settled. I do hope that the red tape which continually entangles the footsteps of the progress that we all want to make, is being cut with a big pair of scissors, that the Treasury is not being allowed to make about with every scheme that is being put forward by our Dominions for weeks and months, haggling about the proportion we are to pay and the proportion they are to pay, while nothing is being done. This House voted this money in a fairly generous spirit in order to gel something done, and it is really intolerable that we have perpetual delay through trying to do this bargaining, which I know is popular in certain quarters, when all the time, as hon. Members have pointed out more than once, we are spending vast sums in keeping people unemployed in this country doing nothing. I hope we shall have something satisfactory on that.
A further question which is very important is the use which is being made of voluntary societies. Negotiations have been pending with several of them. I think that on a previous occasion I raised the question how far the Salvation Army, for instance, was being used, I mention that body because it has undoubtedly a great experience in emigration, it has very able practical officers doing very good work in all these places, and would be a very useful society to use. It would, should think, administer economically, and would enable a great deal of work to he done. It is in these directions that I hope we shall have some account of satisfactory progress. I should like to know how the Ontario scheme is getting on, the Western Australian Land Settle-
ment, the Victoria Land Settlement and the still larger scheme of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. These were never originally intended to assist emigration. What was intended was that the money was to be used in conjunction with the money of the Dominions and the interest on the loans to be raised was to be spent in developing those countries to enable emigrants to work when they got there. People must have railways in order to get to the land. Australia requires a good deal of railway development and indirectly this leads to the question of employment in this country. I have advocated Empire development as a two-barrelled gun—a right and a left—the right being the development of the land, the left barrel being intended to hit the bird of unemployment in our industries here. Those are really the two lines on which you want to develop, and the sooner we get on and the more active we are the quicker you will have the remedy—it is only one of many remedies —aid the sooner you will be able to diminish the number of unemployed. I can assure the hon. Member for Gateshead that this baffling problem is exercising mind and thought of every thinking person in his country and for years has been occupying the brains of the ablest men and the solution is still not of a final or definite or absolute character. I had hoped that the Department of Overseas Trade might have had someone of Ministerial rank at its head, because it is so important that it is almost a one man job to be properly looked after. I hope he will give it that attention which the problem deserves. The proposal made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) of sending someone out to discuss these questions on the spot, is a practical proposition. At one time it was contemplated to send the present First Lord of the Admiralty on a, kind of Empire tour to get the details settled and to get some of these points which take so long in correspondence cleared up. Something of that kind should really be done, and if some authority was given to someone to really settle something, I am sure progress could be made. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can succeed in getting that done he will have earned a deep debt of gratitude from all of us.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: I am fully in accord with the views expressed by the right hon. Baronet. The hon. Member
for Gateshead (Mr. Brotherton) considered this was practically an endeavour to induce people to leave this country, and he implied that he would prefer to remain unemployed here than go to a country where he had a better chance. I think that is a very bad policy. He must know it is absolutely essential that the British Empire should be developed. If we are to hold what we have and develop it, we must have population. In Australia you have a huge continent with 14,000 miles of coast line and 3,000,000 square miles of territory. Within three or four days' sail we have a coloured population of something like 60,000,000, and if we do not develop that country, it stands to reason we shall not be allowed to hold it. It is a certainty, therefore, that we must do our best to develop it. Labour generally in Australia, though there are exceptions, has generally been in favour of helping emigration. Out of seven Prime Ministers, four or five have been Labour leaders, and four of them come from the old country. As far as labour is concerned, it is one of the best parts of the world they can possibly go to. They have a democratic franchise. An opportunity is given to every man to select his own land. He is given 160 free acres, and every possible assistance is rendered. Advances are made through the agricultural banks the land is cleared, and he is given thirty years to repay the advance. Consequently, be has an opportunity to obtain a freehold if he is prepared to comply with the conditions. One is that the land must be improved. That is essential before he obtains his title. Reference has been made to the schemes which have been propounded by various Prime Ministers. The Prime Ministers for Western Australia and South Australia were here last year. One had a scheme for settling boys on the land with farmers which has proved eminently successful, while the Prime Minister of Western Australia was responsible for founding a scheme, which, if carried out in accordance with the proposals laid down, would provide for the settlement of something like 25,000 people. I should be the last man in the world to advise a man to leave this country if there is a possibility of his getting a job, but to a man who can see nothing ahead of him, and who has no prospects here, I would say, "Why not go
out there? "I am Australian born and the son of a man who went out 90 years ago. In those days when settlers landed they were faced with dangers and difficulties sometimes from the blacks, hut they met them because they were of the right stuff to develop the Empire. I believe there are some of the old stock left in this country. Surely you are not going to deter a man who is desirous of making a home for himself across the sea. If he has a job, let him stay, and good luck to him, but every man who goes over there is a potential customer for your workshops here.
The hon. Member spoke as an engineer. Le me give him an example of how his trade is affected. In 1910, I was Premier of Western Australia and I came here in connection with our policy of developing that country which provided for laying down agricultural railways. In that country railways can be put down cheaper than roads. We put them down at a cost of £1,200 per mile. Those railways required rails. Where did we go to for them? To this country. They required locomotives and where did we go? We went to Glasgow and placed orders for 100 locomotives. The Lord Mayor regretted that my visit synchronised with the fact that 500 good Scotch citizens were leaving Glasgow, but I was able to reply that as the result of those men going out there, we were able to employ 600 Glasgow citizens for 12 months in constructing locomotives. The people who go there are going to white men and they will be looked after by white men who are proud to be associated with this country. Surely we have some obligation to these people to help them to defend their land. They came to this country when the occasion arose, not in their hundreds, but in their hundreds of thousands, to fight for this country. Surely we should support any reasonable scheme, built on sound lines, so that people from this country may go out to Australia and assist in the great work of development. Hon. Members are reasonable, and if they can only be satisfied that these schemes are on practical lines, and that they are examined by people here who have sound knowledge, they will support them. One hon. Member spoke about Commissions. I do not take any notice of that. We have done with Commissions. I sat for 12 months on a Royal Commission on
emigration, and we got no further. The action of the Government quite recently in sending out people competent to make inquiries, including a Member of the Labour party, is sound. These people can go there and satisfy themselves whether there is unemployment. They can satisfy themselves whether the schemes put forward by the Government are sound, practical schemes. They can see the Labour leaders out there. The Labour party will not support any scheme which means that there is going to be unemployment in that country. I know what I am speaking about. I represented in this country, as Agent-General, a Labour Government for three years, and their policy was to encourage emigration by every possible means, so long as it did not result in unemployment.

Mr. BROTHERTON: We want to encourage development here.

Sir N. MOORE: We listened to the hon. Member with a considerable amount of interest, and I was very disappointed at the attitude he took as an engineer. I cannot understand an engineer looking for a job for 18 months in this country, when he has an opportunity of going somewhere else and getting a job. As a rule, engineers are pretty active people, and very handy men wherever they go. Some reference has been made to training in this country. I can speak as a practical Australian, as a surveyor who went into the bush when I was 16, in charge of a survey party. A man out there, if he has a heart, and is able to swing an axe, dig a post hole, and use a mattock, can do very well. That is the training that he wants. He must be prepared to rough it. As to the question of training in this country, I do not place much importance on that, because the conditions in this country and in Australia are entirely dissimilar. You see a man here driving a single furrow plough, with a single horse, but out in Australia you may see a man driving six horses and ploughing six or seven acres a day. An engineer is a very useful and handy man out there, because the Australians use a great deal of machinery. I have a farm in one of the States which is being run by a man whom I assisted to emigrate from this country—a Scotsman. That man is able to farm one thousand acres, with the assistance of two or three men at harvest time or when the plough-
ing and seeding is going on. We have very wide areas, and it is imperative, if you are going to make a success of it, that you use machinery extensively.
I should like to refer hon. Members to the scheme that the Premier of Western Australia proposes. He has prepared one which will appeal to a large number of hon. Members. It is a group system scheme. He says that, provided they can get a guarantee of 1,000 per man, they will go into the group system and reserve the blocks of land necessary for the scheme. For that £1,000 these men are to be guaranteed 12 months' employment they are to work under a boss of their own selection, who will have an opportunity of directing their operations. They will have the advice of the experts of the Agricultural Department, who will give them all the practical advice that is necessary. A large number of people in this country lay very great stress on the advisability, as far as possible, of encouraging these more or less community settlements; but we, have to realise that these schemes cannot be accepted as if they were on chess-board lines. We have to realise that each Dominion is a separate proposition. It is no use sending, as suggested, say, 10,000 people to each Dominion or State. One may be able to absorb 50,000, while another cannot absorb 10,000. Therefore, it is not simply a question of dividing up one large prairie which you can lay out like a chess-board. Each country has its separate problems and difficulties. You have in some cases to provide proper roads and railways and you have to classify the land. In some places 100 acres will give a good living for a man, while in another place it may mean 2,000 acres, with only 150 acres of first-class land, and perhaps 500 acres of second-class land. We must beware of these chess-board schemes, and we must have them examined by competent people who can tell us whether they arc practical propositions or not.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The, House has listened with interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Islington (Sir N. Moore). He has praised the benefits that are going to flow to the working men of this country who are unemployed and who are prepared to emigrate; but it is peculiar that with all the blessings of Australia, of
which he has spoken, he has left them behind him and come back to this country. I think the unemployed man in this country will have the same point of view, and will prefer to remain in the old country and, possibly, to take the scat of the hon. Member at the next election.

Sir N. MOORE: Men have gone out there and have taken their seats there.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Four Prime Ministers!

Mr. MACLEAN: That is no reason why we should ask our people to emigrate. We cannot all be Prime Ministers in Australia. That is, perhaps, one of the reasons why the hon. Member for North Islington has come back. The Government in bringing forward this scheme of Empire settlement and for sending out our people to the Dominions, at a cost of £150, are breaking one of the most solemn pledges that was made to the people of this country during the War. There is no occasion for any man being sent out from this country. There is ample opportunity in this country for anyone who desires to have it; but industry and initiative are stifled in this country because of certain conditions that circumscribe the activities of people who want to go on the land. We spend £150 on putting people out of the country, when for half that sum we could pat people on the land in this country.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Where could you put people on the land here?

Mr. J. JONES: In Mensal Green Cemetery. For £10 you can put them on the land.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member for Silvertown anticipates the future of the landlords. If the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell) will allow me to develop my point, I will answer him. The people of this country desire to go on the land. The Secretary for Scotland has had thousands of applications from ex-service men who desire to settle upon the land in Scotland, and he could find land for them. They were promised some of this land to settle upon prior to the War. During the War the land promised to them was bought up, and they were refused it. So they had to go to the extent of seizing it, and were put in prison for doing so. There is ample opportunity for settling in this country.
There is no need to colonise the world until we have colonised the land.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I am sorry to interrupt, but the point to which I called attention was that the hon. Member had said you could put the men on the land for one half of, £150. I admit that many people could be put on the land, but not at the price the hon. Member says.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member is perhaps correct, if he is looking at the price of land as it is to-day, under private ownership.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Oh, no, at the expense of putting them on the land.

Mr. MACLEAN: Make the land of this country Government land, and you can do it more cheaply than in Australia.

Mr. BLUNDELL: The land in this country is developed.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the hon. Member suggest that this country is developed? Has he travelled through some parts of the country? There are miles upon miles of land in this country that await development. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] There are miles upon miles of land in this country that are being taken from development—land that has been ploughed, farmland. The farms have been taken in and added to game preserves. [HON. MEMBERS; Where?"] In Perthshire, in Sutherlandshire, in Ross-shire, and in Inverness-shire. If any hon. Member cares to conic with me to Scotland, I will show him acre after acre that has been taken from farmland and put into game preserves.

Mr. ERSKINE: Never!

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Gentleman does not know his own country.

Mr. JONES: He has pinched every inch of it.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member does not know the history of his own country.

Mr. ERSKINE: Every inch of it.

Mr. SHINWELL: The Hon. Member only goes to Scotland on 12th August.

Mr. MACLEAN: He only goes there for six weeks in the year.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: I can give the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) the case of the large amount of land taken by the Duke of Sutherland and reclaimed, out of which the men on it could not make a living.

Mr. MACLEAN: I can also give an instance where land was taken by an ancestor of the Duke of Sutherland, and 15,000 people were turned off that land—driven off by fire and sword. You have never heard of the Sutherland clearance. The whole of the situation that arises is due to this: First of all, you can have certain conditions in this country under which, during a war with other countries, you have no unemployment. You can find employment in this country when you are at war for every man. There is no unemployment problem then.

Mr. ERSKINE: Six million were out at the War.

Mr. MACLEAN: And you brought Chinamen in to take the places of the dockers at Cardiff. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense! "] It may be nonsense to you, but it is not to the men walking the streets unemployed to-day.

Mr. ERSKINE: They were fighting then.

Mr. MACLEAN: Exactly, and you cannot find a job for them now, when they have saved the country for you.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Give them a chance, if they want to go.

Mr. MACLEAN: Here is a Circular issued by the Ministry of Labour, for the emigration of children from 14 to 17 years of age.

Sir C. YATE: Just the best time to go.

Mr. SHINWELL: Send your own children there.

Mr. MACLEAN: It is just the best time not to be sent there.

Mr. WALLHEAD: You take away our children at 14, but you keep your children at school until they are 24 years of age, and then set them racing on the Thames. You talk about emigrating children at 14; you ought to be ashamed of yourselves!

Mr. MACLEAN: This Circular deals with children from 14 to 17 years of age.
It suggests that, owing to the fact that there are 200,000 children leaving school every year, they should be emigrated and be grained in the colonies. It is laid down that applicants interviewed have to be classified in three classes—as suitable, doubtful, or unsuitable. We are getting back to the A 1, B 2, and C 3 classes of the War period. This is to be placed before the boys from the ordinary schools of the country, not from the public schools or the universities. It is for the boys from the ordinary schools, the elementary schools, the schools to which children of the working classes go. These are the individuals who are to be taken out there, and who have to be shepherded by the Salvation Army, if you agree to let them take them out, or by voluntary agencies, if the Government agrees to the proposal of the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) to subsidise them. These children are to be taken out and handed over to farmers.

Mr. GOULD: I went out at 17 years of age.

Mr. MACLEAN: The, Circular says, Not 17 years, but from 14 to 17 years.

Mr. GOULD: And a good thing too.

Mr. MACLEAN: And you came back also, like the hon. Member for North Islington (Sir Newton Moore). You did not wait out there, you came back.

Mr. GOULD: I went out to learn something.

Mr. PENNY: I should like to mention that I went out at 14.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Penny) is a fine-looking Member, I admit that. He also, like the other two hon. Members who have given their testimony, has come back. The old country is more to him than Australia.

Mr. PENNY: Certainly.

Mr. ERSKINE: They have come back having made their fortunes.

Mr. MACLEAN: There are other men who have come back both from Australia and Canada who did not make their fortunes.

Mr. GOULD: Because they would not work.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member is interrupting with nonsense, now.

Mr. GOULD: Common sense.

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not object to barracking, but I object entirely to individuals interrupting in that manner. Many of the men have been compelled to come back. I know seine who have come back, and there are others out in the Colonies who cannot raise the money to come back, and who have not got employment.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Do you know anybody who has stayed out there?

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not understand that interruption. There are in Canada, at the present time, thousands of people who are unemployed. There are thousands of people unemployed in Australia. You are neither salving the unemployment problem there or here by sending unemployed people out to other places where there is unemployment. Only a year ago, in Canada, I was speaking to the Labour Minister, Senator Robertson, prior to the last General Election there. He told me he would have to pay the fare of thousands of men, from Toronto, Montreal, acid Winnipeg, up into the prairies to assist on the farms with the harvest. After six weeks or two months had passed, those men would drift hack again into the towns. There was no work for them in the towns, and there was no work longer than six weeks or two months, at the outside, to keep them on. the prairies. The Government talk about sending children out to the Dominions to be trained. We are told that this is a good idea. Empire settlement! Empire development! Why cannot you develop your own country first, before you talk about developing other lands?
When you get a Liverpool soapboiler buying up a large portion of Scotland, and keeping the land out of cultivation, you call it development. That is not development in the sense in which we understand development. If you wish this country to become merely a pleasure ground for those who can afford to purchase the country, that is all very well from your point of view, but the men who have fought for the country, who have been born and brought up in the country, who were enticed into the Army under the promise that there were to be
better conditions when the War ended, the men whom you have deceived and you have robbed, are told that you can find them no employment in this country which they have saved, and you give them £150 to get out of it. The whole system of Empire settlement starting from that basis is absurd. When the Empire Settlement Act went through this House I said the same things that I am saying now. I protested against it, and I tried to have amendments made.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Your own leader supported it.

Mr. MACLEAN: This is no new position for me to take up. The hon. Member opposite has said many things about the men who are sitting side by side with him. Has he swallowed his words now? He has changed his opinions? I do not attribute to that the fact that he is sitting on that bench now, but if my leader has said something a year ago different from what he says to-day regarding this point, he is not the only man in this House who has changed his opinion. I hope that the Government, whatever attitude they are going to take up, will at least withdraw this infamous Circular issued by the Ministry of Labour. No matter how we got it, it is marked "confidential." This is one of the documents which the Minister of Labour no doubt had in mind when, in answer to a question asking for all the Regulations and documents sent out to officials of the Ministry of Labour and unemployment committees, he said that he could not give them as they were confidential documents. It is a scandalous document, and I hope that the Government will withdraw it, and the terms contained in it for the emigration of young children.
It may be that Dr. Barnardo's Homes send children out. No one wants to say a word against those homes or the children sent out by them in England or the Quarriers' Homes in Scotland, but they are orphan children, and the children proposed to be taken out under this Circular are children living with their parents who must have their parents' consent before they are sent out. Is there any free choice to a parent who is unemployed, who is on the gap with no money coming into the home, whose children
are starving? Undoubtedly the man will try to do the best he can for the family. The best he can do is to keep them in his house if he can do it.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Will the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. MACLEAN: If the hon. Member will continue to interrupt, I cannot help my rejoinders. The children sent out from Dr. Barnardo's Homes are orphans, but these children are not. I hope that the Government will withdraw this document, and I hope further that those questions of Empire settlement are going to be debated more on the lines of settling our own people upon the land of our own country.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: And have them starving.

Mr. MACLEAN: You do not starve, and you are neither on the land nor in industry. We want the people to be placed on the land of the country. We want the land of this country to be colonised. We are told that every emigrant from this country becomes a potential customer for this country, but every man employed in this country is not a potential but an actual customer in this country. He cannot purchase outside this country, while the Australian and the Canadian can. First develop and settle our own country, and with all the agricultural implements we have, and with our knowledge of science, we shall find that this country can grow considerably more than will support a larger population than we have got to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is absurd to say that there are too many people in this country. There are not. This country will support more than live on it at the present time, if properly cultivated, with private ownership in land destroyed, and until we colonise our own country there is no occasion for Empire settlement, or for the emigration of British children under the age of 17.

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The hon. Member who has just sat down has given us a very forcible and interesting speech, ranging over a large number of subjects. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not follow him in all the points which he has raised. My business here to-night is to discuss the Empire Settlement Act, which it is my duty to administer, though
I will endeavour in the course of my speech to answer, as well as I can, the points which the hon. Member has raised. The House has listened to a number of very interesting speeches delivered for the most part more with an idea of helpfulness than anything else. We have all been very much struck, I am sure, with the sincerity and deep purpose of the speeches, and if I may be forgiven for saying so I am very grateful for the whole tone of this Debate. I feel that I ought to begin by making some sort of apology for myself. It is only a few days since I was appointed and with the best will in the world it has been impossible for me to make myself completely master of the whole of a very difficult and very intricate subject. If I fail to deal with it to-night as completely as I ought and to answer all the questions and points which have been raised, I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I ask for their indulgence and assure them that it will not be for want of zeal.
I should like to say at once that I welcome this discussion for three reasons. The Empire Settlement Act passed its Third Reading on the 22nd May last year without a Division. That is nearly a year ago, and it is only natural and right, as the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) reminded us, that the House should have some account of the stewardship of that Act. My second reason is that I find already after my short acquaintance with this work that there is much ignorance of the aims and nature of the problems with which we are attempting to deal, and I think I have noticed a good deal of that ignorance in the speeches delivered to-night. If there is ignorance with regard to the aims and nature of the problem, there is also ignorance with regard to its practical difficulties. The best way to dissipate these misunderstandings is by discussion in this House. I hope, and we all hope, that this project will ultimately prove to be a great commercial success and of material benefit, not merely to the people of this country, but to the whole Empire. Let me emphasise this point from the very beginning, that we must not look at it solely and primarily from the material point of view. It must not be looked at as a solution of the problem of unemployment. That is a special problem and an immediate problem. The dislocation of trade brought about by the War have pre-
sented that problem not merely to this country but to the Dominions. It is still with them in an acute form, and to talk of using them as a means of curing something from which we are suffering in a peculiar degree is a great political mistake. No, it is not from that point of view that we have to look upon it. We must not look at it, either, merely as an opportunity of getting rid of a number of people we do not want, and here I want to correct the misapprehension that seems to exist on the benches opposite. The whole aim of this policy is not to get rid of people but to reverse the spirit in which people used to leave this country in years gone by. Then they left it with bitterness, with hatred, and with rancour in their hearts against a country which could not help them, and which did nothing for them. Three-quarters of them went not to British Dominions but to foreign countries. We want to reverse the whole process, and to send them with affection and with gratitude, not to foreign countries, but to British Dominions, to remain and to be citizens of the British Empire, and to help us to people our great Empire as it ought to be peopled, with British people with British aims, British ideals, British thoughts and British aspirations. If we are ever going to get at the heart of this matter and to look at it from the right point of view, let us realise once and for all that at the very basis of it is a great ideal, the ideal of a solid, united, prosperous, peaceful, and beneficent British Empire.
I have said that I do not look upon Empire migration from the point of getting rid of our surplus population, and I should like to say a few words with regard to population. I have seen various estimates with regard to the extent to which we are said to be overpopulated. A few days ago I heard we had 4,000,000 people too many in this country, and to-night the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) put his estimate rather lower, at about 2,500,000. I do not think it is a question so much of whether we have too many people in this country or whether we have not. The total volume of our foreign trade is about 30 per cent. less than in 1913. We have 1,500,000 people out of work, and it is reasonable to assume that if that trade could be
restored we should return to a greater measure of prosperity.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned that our foreign trade was 30 per cent. less. Is that in quantity or value?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Equivalent value. No, what we have to do now is to restore that foreign trade to its pre-War dimensions, and what we have to remember in considering this question of population and migration is that, if we are going to maintain the same number of people in these islands, it will only be by the maintenance and expansion of our foreign trade, and that at the moment Empire development offers the best prospects for stimulating the demand for British products overseas. Everything points in that direction. The British Empire has a position of unequalled advantage. Its undeveloped resources are vast and of great extent, and there is no doubt that its population is unequally distributed. The hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Colonel Alexander) in his maiden speech gave figures with which I did not quite agree, but which were accurate enough for the purposes of his argument. The population per square mile of Great Britain is 480.5 persons. In Canada, excluding the North West, Territory and the Yukon, it is four persons; in Australia 1.8; in New Zealand 11.7. It is obvious at once that if we are going to develop the resources of the British Empire with British people there is vast room for a readjustment of the population. The second indication in the direction of Empire development is that in the future the whole trend of our export trade is almost bound to be towards the Dominions. Australia already is our second largest customer, and as time goes on, with the difficulties that encompass and threaten Europe with the drawbacks in trading with people who speak a different tongue and with different forms of thought, the whole trend of our trade will be more in the direction of people of our own ideas, who speak our language, who are citizens of our Empire and our best customers. The whole course of migration tends in the direction of the British Empire. What is the course of migration 2 In 1890 to 1894 three-quarters of the movement of migration was to destinations outside the Em-
pire. Twenty years later there was a complete change, and three-quarters of the migrants gent to Empire destinations. Down to the end of the 19th century the United States attracted more than all parts of the Empire together. The new century sees the tendency reversed, the United States almost fully settled, and railway development in the Dominions has given ample access to their fertile lands. It is no use being in a hurry over this matter. I shall presently quote figures which will show that the number of people who have been migrated under this Bill is not sufficiently large to go into ecstacies about, but which will show that considering the difficulties which have been very considerable and arduous a great deal has been accomplished in paving the way.
For the first time in the history of this country the Empire has a definite policy of development. That is the first thing given us by the Empire Settlement Act. The British Emipre, loosely-knit as it is, misunderstood, and often mismanaged as it has been, withstood a great shock in 1934. We then learned it was a source of strength and not a source of weakness, and that it had what is the absolute requisite for the foundation of the ideal State, settlement, or Empire, namely, goodwill. In approaching this matter, may I ask my hon. Friends to believe that the first thing we have to do is to take every possible care that we do not dissipate that goodwill. The second thing we have to do is to work for co-operation and co-ordination. That is not always easy. It is not easy to hurry schemes of migration when those schemes have to be negotiated between Parliaments which are separated by several thousands of miles.
Lastly, there is the question of organisation. The organisation on this side is a comparatively easy matter, but it is difficult at the other end. It is comparatively easy for us to collect the people, but it is far more difficult for those on the other side to receive them, as they want to receive them, in the best possible way. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Viscount Sandon), who made his maiden speech, that the bun and cup of tea is not lacking when these people land in Canada or Australia. It must be borne in mind that migration must not get ahead of development, and that there is
a strong need of harmony between the two.
In answer to the very natural request of may right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea, I will now try to state what has been done. In the first place, the House knows, we have this Oversea Settlement Office, which has been in existence for four years. For the first three years of its existence it dealt with the settlement of ex-service men, who were granted free passages, and since this Act came into force it has had the duty of working and operating this Act. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) asked me why this Office had been transferred to the Department of Overseas Trade. It has not been transferred to that Department. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that the Department would be still under the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: That was in answer to a question I put. The intention of it was to indicate that my right hon. Friend is already overburdened with work in connection with trade development, and yet on top of those arduous duties he has suddenly put upon him the work of this migration scheme, which could occupy the whole time of the biggest statesman which the country has ever had.

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I am afraid I am not the only Under-Secretary who is overburdened with work. My hon. and gallant Friend whom I followed is far more overburdened with work than I am. After all, the Department of Overseas Trade is not a bad Department in which to have an office of this character, because sooner or later it is coming down to a commercial proposition. If it is the duty of my Department to watch the progress of, and to assist in the advancement of, the commerce of this country, surely, if we agree that the main trend of the future development of our commerce is towards the Empire, then this Office is not very badly housed where it is. The Overseas Settlement Office is working in the closest touch with the Dominion Governments through their representatives in London, and it also has the assistance of the organisation of the Ministry of Labour. Since the Act came into force it has arranged the following
schemes: A general passage agreement to Australia, a small scheme with Dr. Barnardo's Homes, a scheme with Western Australia, a passage agreement with New Zealand, and a small scheme with Ontario. Under these schemes 11,038 people have already been migrated. The Australian schemes are in course of negotiation, although they are not yet in operation, with the exception of the Victoria Settlement Scheme, which has definitely been approved. There is a scheme under consideration with New South Wales, a scheme with the Australian Farmers, Limited, a scheme with the Child Emigration Society, a scheme with the Government of Canada, a scheme with the British Dominions Emigration Society, and a scheme with the Salvation Army. Under all those schemes, if they come to fruition, as I trust they will, we hope to create a migration in the course of the next 12 months of 75,000 people, or at the rate of 1,500 a week.
The migrants, the people who are going to migrate, are divided into three classes. There are, first, the single men and women. There are, secondly, the children and juveniles, and there are, thirdly, the married men with families. I shall have a few words to say shortly with regard to the order in which we shall deal with those categories and our policy with regard to them; but I want to say this now. I want the House to remember that every individual case has got to he dealt with on its own, and on its merits, and that every individual case goes to the representatives of the Dominion Governments in London, with whom the final selection rests. We are also, by way of experiment, setting up, or are about to set up, a Migration Committee in the County of Kent; but until the whole policy of the scheme of emigration is developed, we do not propose to proceed very much further in that direction. The Kent committee would rather be something by way of experiment.
10.0 P.M.
What is our policy going to be? Because that, after all, is what the House really wants to know. The first thing we have got to do is to complete the arrangements and to ensure that these schemes are working in cordial co-operation. I should like to say at once that, so far as I understand it, although
we have not always been able to agree on points of detail with the Dominions overseas, we have met on all hands the most active and the most cordial desire to co-operate in this great movement. The second thing we have to do is to get the right people to migrate. Sometimes the charge is made that we are migrating the best. The only thing I need say in answer to that is that we need the best. We need all the character, ability, initiative and enterprise there is in the people of this country to go out and face the difficulties of new positions abroad. I am not the least afraid of that. There are plenty more coming on. The inherent qualities of the race are not dead. They are only a little bit cramped, and if we made more room at the top it would merely mean a better opportunity for those who, at the moment, are underneath.
What is the policy with regard to the migration of children? And here I must cross swords with my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). In the categories of migrants, we place children and juveniles first. I will tell the House why I say that. It is not a question of carrying people away from their homes. There is not the smallest intention or desire to do anything of the sort. As a matter of fact the great majority of children who go abroad are children who are destitute and who are orphans, and whose outlook in this country is hopelessly black. We hope to give them a better outlook and a better chance in a new country. They are mostly in the care of the Poor Law guardians, or well-known and well-recognised societies in this country. When I first heard of emigration of children I was a little horrified. It seemed a terrible thing to take a small child abroad among strange people and new surroundings, but when I came to inquire into it I found there was nothing to be alarmed at. In Canada we migrate children down to eight years of age. There seems to be for some reason or another a great number of married people in Canada who are childless, and they are glad to adopt these little orphans. On this side suitable children have to be selected to be sent out. They go across the sea in charge of an officer of the society or some other responsible person. They are kindly and well received on the
other side. The Canadian Government exercises the very greatest care in the selection of the people who are to adopt them, and when they are finally adopted it has one of the most complete systems of inspection I have ever heard of. Government inspectors visit these children from time to time in the farms or homes or wherever they may be. They give no notice of their visits. They first make a careful inspection of the home and full inquiries as to the general treatment of the child. Then they have a talk with the child alone, and if the inspector is not satisfied that the child is being adequately looked after he takes the child away there and then. That is about as sensible and humane and kind a system as one could have. Australia is not so keen on child emigration or juvenile emigration. But there is a certain amount of it, and at the present time we have a Commission on the seas which is to visit Australia. They sailed last Saturday, and included among them is a Member of the Labour party who is known and respected in all quarters of the House, the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall).
The second category is that of women. We have 1,700,000 more women in this country than men. Although in certain portions of the Dominions it is true that there are more women than men, taking them as a whole, the balance in the Dominions is the other way, and it stands to reason that an adjustment of the balance is a right and proper policy and in the interests of the nation as a whole. The next category is that of single men, and if they are not too old they are not a very difficult problem provided they are not unsuited to the life. I am rather inclined to the view that the people who go abroad should be given some training in this country as that would enable us to weed out the unsuitable, but there is no doubt that the Australians at least do not want them to be trained here. They want the raw material to bring them up in their own way. There is a good deal to be said for that, but I believe we shall have to consider the question of establishing in the future some system of training in this country. The last class is the married men with families, and here you have the ideal person to settle in a new country. The husband and wife take the children out with memories of the old country and look after them and bring them up not so much as citizens of the new Dominion,
but with a closer feeling towards the old country than orphan children and other young people would have. But they are a difficult problem to deal with because the question of sustenance while the man [...]s finding his feet is not an easy one. It is not desirable to send the man ahead and leave the family to follow, and it is not desirable to send the man to a new country unless he has the chance of making a living straight away. The burden of sustaining the men while they are finding their feet is rather too heavy a burden for the Dominions, but if these settlement schemes mature there will be a great deal more done in the migration of married men and families. Here I will refer again to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth. If he will allow me to say so, I think the greater portion of it should have been addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Our means are limited, and we have not the means at our disposal to go in for large schemes. That is a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: He is holding it up.

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: That is not his fault. In transferring this scheme to me and to my Department, I am quite certain the Government; have no intention of letting this matter drop. It is a matter of high policy and of first-class importance. I look upon the Empire Settlement Act as one of the most important and far-reaching Acts of Parliament that have been passed for many years. I have listened to-night to two most interesting maiden speeches, and I have felt too as if I were making a maiden speech. The office which I have had the honour of holding for the last two years has kept me a silent but interested spectator of the proceedings of this House. And thinking of maiden speeches has made me think of my early days in Parliament, of the high hopes with which we started in 1919 and of how many of us have lived to be a great deal disillusioned, but I see in this Act something which, in my opinion, is a first step to the new England we all want to see. I believe it will be a step also towards the making of a new Empire an Empire which will be a tower of strength, and not a source of weakness, a security and not an anxiety, and it may be that in the years to come it will be a great factor for
peace in a world which far too frequently has been ravaged and devastated by the cruelties and wickedness and follies of war.

Orders of the Day — DISPOSAL BOARD.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: I wish to speak on another subject, which I am afraid is not so interesting as the one we have just listened to, nor is it likely to attract so many speakers. I wish the House to consider the Disposal Board and Liquidation Commission. I want to persuade them to insist on the Government appointing an independant Committee to inquire into the many cases, as rumour has it, where the administration has not been as it ought to be. I am particularly sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present this evening, because he would have power to give us this Committee, and I am afraid my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can only give us, if he sympathises with us, the cold satisfaction of consulting his right hon. Friend as to whether it can be given. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us-whether the report in the newspapers, that the Disposal Board is to end on 1st April, is true. I hope that it does not mean that the whole of the administrative staff of the Disposal Board is to be transferred to another Department of State, as has happened in so many other cases. Only on 11th March there was another announcement in the papers —that at the special request of the Government the Disposal Board was to be continued for another three months. In my humble opinion, the Disposal Board ought to have been ended 18 months ago, to the advantage of the country and the taxpayers. When we consider these great schemes of Empire settlement as we have just done, we must recognise that it will he impossible to carry them out unless we are economical in the administration of the great Departments.
When questions have been put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing especially with the brass scrap contracts, he has invariably said that he is quite certain that everything is all right, and that he sees no reason to differ from the decision arrived at by his predecessor in office. I hope, before I have finished my speech, to give the House a few details in reference to this brass scrap which will satisfy hon. Members that a Select Com-
mittee ought to be appointed, with full power to call for any documents, without having privilege urged, as is so often the case, where business men and lawyers could be represented—law enters greatly into the question—and where, if necessary, witnesses could be called and evidence taken on oath. Without a full and free inquiry I am afraid that the country will not be satisfied. In dealing with this brass scrap contract I shall have to refer to three firms. The House may remember that after the Armistice the Disposal Board were able to deal with individual applications for metals and did not enter upon block sales. The Press started a campaign, urging the early closing of the Disposal Board. The Board then went in for block sales. One of the earliest transactions in block sales was with a firm at Birmingham, E. J. Smith & Co., a firm who before the War were not engaged in the metal trade at all but were a firm of speculative builders and became metal merchants during the War and had practically the sole right to deal in this metal to the exclusion of all the other metal merchants at Birmingham. Why this firm should have been selected, I do not know.
One of the first contracts that this firm had with the Government was to take brass at £56 a ton. The price dropped shortly afterwards. The firm was then relieved of its contract and was put on a 5 per cent. commission basis, which, according to an answer given in this House, represented a net profit to that firm of something like £80,000, although if it had been held to the contract the firm would have been bankrupt. It is a very curious transaction. Where a contractor makes a profit he sticks to his contract, but directly the price drops he is relieved by the Disposal Board of the obligation to carry out the contract. It is a very nice way of doing business, and many of us would like to be treated in that way. About that time another firm, a firm that had been tried during the War with great contracts, and who never let the Government or the country down—a firm well known in the engineering world—entered into a contract. The Disposal Board entered into a contract with them to take brass scrap (amongst other goods), which they sold for the Government, at £35 per ton. The contract was based on a minimum of a £5,000,000 deal and the whole organi-
cation of the firm was placed at the command of the Government. Sir Howard Frank sneered in a letter to the "Times" at a firm which showed only a nominal capital. I would like to ask him how much capital was represented in his business—nothing more or less than the office furniture. Why he should jeer at a firm which nominally had only £37,000 capital I cannot understand and to say the least of it, showed extraordinarily bad taste on his part. However, this firm was asked by the Government to give financial guarantees and they had not the smallest difficulty in getting Messrs. Coutts and Company to guarantee them absolutely and entirely for 5,000,000 golden sovereigns which was the minimum extent of their contract. This firm, Rownson, Drew and Clydesdale, an eminent firm with great credit proved themselves capable contractors for the Government during the War and this was the firm with which the Government entered into a contract and as I will submit in a few minutes the Government did not act according to their contract with the consequence that they have to pay compensation to the extent of between £45,000 and £50,000. This agreement laid it down that the Government could call upon this firm to sell, on the terms arranged, the minimum or as much over as they liked, of this brass scrap among other articles.
According to Clause 5, Schedule A, they could be called upon to sell practically any stores which the Government choose to require them to dispose of. Sir Howard Frank has said that this firm could only deal with 120 tons of brass. They contracted with their sub-contractors at £35 a ton to take all that was available, and the only thing they could get out of the Government was 120 tons of brass while the Government were willing to offer other people, at a far less price, the scrap which they could insist on this firm taking. The consequence was that they did not hand to the firm anything like the quantity of goods which they had in store, and, as I say, they had to pay from £45,000 to £50,000 compensation for not carrying out the contract, although the Government had the goods. The other contractor takes a very different aspect altogether, and that is the British Metal Corporation. Hon. Members opposite, and in various parts of the House—and I agree with them absolutely and entirely—think it is
very wrong for men who have got to know the intricate business of any Department to take positions as directors or managing directors of companies which have immediate dealings with the Government. It is bad enough for Ministers. If Ministers do it, they cannot complain of other people following suit, but I think the ordinary Member of Parliament, like myself, is very sorry indeed to see anything of that sort taking place. Under D.O.R.A. the Ministry of Munitions and Disposal had the right to see all the contracts of all the metal merchants in the United Kingdom, which makes the present case much stronger.
The British Metal Corporation got a huge contract—and this is the main contract for this brass scrap—for 150,000 tons at £24 2s. per ton, while it is sold by this other firm, Messrs. Rownson, Drew, and Clydesdale, at £35 per ton. At the end of the first year of Rownson, Drew, and Clydesdale's contract, during which the Disposal Board had undertaken to hand over goods to the extent of £5,000,000 worth, the Government actually owed them as compensation £125,000, and it would no doubt have paid the firm to have taken it, but they said: "No, we have seen too much of what is going on. We feel that we are under a duty to do our best by the country, and we will give you another year within which to complete your contract. We shall not want compensation; we want to work for our money, but we make one proviso. We will agree to extend it for another year, to allow you to carry out your contract without compensation, provided you accept the area clearance scheme which has been prepared at the request of Lord Inverforth and which has already been submitted." The Disposal Board accepted that, but they never carried it out. If they had carried it out, it would have meant closing up within six months all these different sections of the Disposal Board, and this is where I do blame the Disposal Board that they did not see carried out the various arrangements which they, with their eyes open, had made in reference to these contracts. The British Metal Corporation came on the scene. They were not registered before the Armistice; they were registered immediately after the Armistice; and came into being. Who are the directors? I will not give the names now. [HON.
MEMBERS: "Yes, do."] I am very willing to show them to any hon. Member who likes to see them, but I will say this much, that they were all of them, with two exceptions, men who had held advisory positions to the Ministry of Munitions or Disposal Board dealing with these very metals for which they were going to get this contract. One of them, Mr. Rucker, is the managing-director of the British Metal Corporation. He was the late Controller to the Disposal Board on non-ferrous goods. Some hold positions on the Metallgesellschaft. The late Sir Samuel Evans said, when dealing with the Metallgesellschaft and its kindred companies, that the hand of this German company was seen and its powerful influence exhibited at all times and places. The Disposal Board gave this British Metal Corporation 150,000 tons of this stuff at £24 odd per ton. We are told by some that this was only scrap brass. The ordinary man in the street thinks that scrap brass is old brass broken up, and all that sort of thing, but what will the Minister say who is going to reply when I ask him if he knew that some of it was new material which had been, under Sir Howard Frank's authority, transferred to scrap in the stores schedule at the various depots. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some of us have seen that done! "] If hon. Members doubt me, let me assure them that I hold in my hand the White Paper issued by the instruction of the Disposal Board, and over the signature of Colonel Corbett, which deals with this contract of the British Metal Corporation, and says: the brass scrap of 70/30, that is, 70 per cent. copper and 30 per cent. of zinc, which at the time was selling at from £60 to£80 per ton, was to be handed over to this corporation. The depots were to be very careful to select brass scrap of the proper analysis. The little grub screws at the head of the shell were actually taken out at the expense of the Government, thus saving the corporation a pound or two per ton. When Sir Howard Frank talks about scrap brass, as though he did not know that under his own instructions new commercial brass, e.g., rods, tubes and sheet, were to be included and called brass scrap, really he is asking us to believe what I am sure my hon. Friend would not believe if he had all the facts before him When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was answering a question put
by an hon. Member recently, he said that there was a great deal more behind this question than appeared on the face of it. There is. It is very difficult, at this late hour, to answer all the questions that have been raised, and go into all the technical points in connection with the matter, but I hope that when I tell the House that, by the directions of the Board, new brass rods, sheets and tubes were, just immediately after the signing of this contract, suddenly transferred to scrap, and that the whole was sold, at a less price than could have been got under a contract which was already running, they will agree with me that a very drastic inquiry should be immediately held. I know it has been said on behalf of the Disposal Board that Messrs. Rownson Drew and Clydesdale actually signed a contract for £25. They did, because, when this contract was signed without competition or even consulting the trade, their sub-contractor came and said to them, "How can I pay you £35 when the British Metal Corporation have this huge amount hanging over the market at £24? I can only give you £25." That was on the eve of the signing of this huge contract. The Government had made it impossible to get £35 when they handed over this vast amount at £24 per ton to the British Metal Corporation. Another very surprising statement was made by Sir Howard Frank, to the effect that he kept in touch with the trade, that the trade was consulted on this question, that it was open to competition; but, unless you had the facts before you, you would be inclined to believe it. But directly it was hinted about that this vast amount of scrap brass was to be sold to the British Metal Corporation, the Birmingham metal merchants, the London metal merchants, and the big metropolitan metal merchants throughout the country, wired to Sir Howard Frank protesting against it, and gave him notice that a big demonstration of protest would he held. At a meeting at Birmingham the following resolution was passed:
 This meeting of Birmingham metal merchants, holding the view that block sales should only be made after the material has been offered to competition, strongly protests against the sale of brass announced in the Press, and should any portion exist of material previously sold which may not have been taken up by other contractors, will feel
compelled publicly to agitate for a complete inquiry into the whole of the circumstances.
A London meeting also passed a similar Resolution, and they gave notice to the Government, before the contract was actually signed by the British Metal Corporation, that they were holding meetings protesting against the metal being sold without competition from the British metal merchants, and indirectly for the benefit of British trade. But directly the contract was signed, to show what this British Metal Corporation was clearly after—I would emphasise that some of the directors were continuing the influence of the Metallgesellschaft—the greater part of the brass was shipped immediately to Frankfort, the home of the company which the Non-ferrous Act was passed to suppress. I ask the hon. Gentleman will he let us have a full and free Committee to inquire into this question? I shall be delighted if I am proved to be wrong, but the information given me is so strong that I feel almost inclined to lay my money on the case I have stated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said he is quite satisfied that everything has been done properly and efficiently. If so, he need not fear an inquiry. I think we ought to have an inquiry, and I hope the House will support me in my appeal.
There is another question on the sale of depots in France. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he saw the report of the Audricq depot which was made in 1921 at the request of Lord Inverforth, in which the value of that depot was put at £1,250,000, and it was coupled with an offer to clear it almost immediately. What is the result now? Audricq and three other larger depots, of the value of about £4,000,000 at a low estimate were sold to two men for £2,000,000. They were in possession for some months and then were let off their contract. They paid the Government £389,000 on account. The Government estimate what is left at £500,000. I want to know what happened to the difference, and why these men were allowed to have this contract without proper financial guarantees? I want to know also why Mr. Hughes, one of these two men who failed in their contract to pay for these depots is allowed to buy some of our capital ships that we sold last year. I asked the Admiralty to give me the names of the 11 capital ships that were sold last year,
their tonnage, the price paid for them and the conditions attached—whether they were to be broken up in this country for the benefit of our unemployed or not. A great many of them were taken straight away to Germany and other foreign parts. But the Admiralty again, like so many other Departments said, "It is not in the public interest to give you the information asked for." Why not? It is the taxpayers' money. The thing is done. I want to prove, what I am told is the case, that for one of these ships the price accepted from Mr. Hughes was less than another offer that was made. I want to know why Mr. Hughes was allowed to buy these ships when he could not carry out his other contract. It may be necessary to preserve secrecy when we are dealing with delicate negotiations in foreign affairs, but in this case the representatives of the taxpayers are entitled to have the information.
The same thing happened at the end of the last Parliament. Sir Eric Geddes, the Economy Minister, who is very keen on economy when it does not affect his own pocket, was paid by the North Eastern Railway £50,000, or, rather, the North Eastern Railway would not pay, and the Government paid. When I asked the Government to allow the agreement to be placed on the Table, they refused, and I do not know how we can make them. All this nonsense about its not being in the public interest to give information when the taxpayers' money is concerned ought not to be tolerated. The House of Commons has the right to be master in its own house, and these refusals will not satisfy those who are anxious to promote economy. We have heard about railway engines at Woolwich. I approached the firm and said to them: "There has been a lot of talk in the House of Commons about the Woolwich locomotives. Would you have taken them? "They replied:" Yes. We should have been obliged to take them if the Government had asked us to do so." I asked in the House whether the Government had asked this firm to take the engines. They did not do so. The transactions of the Disposal Board have been dilatory. They have been opposed to the early closing of the Disposal Board, and have purposely put obstacles in the way of handing over materials which this firm could have dealt with. I believe the
reason was that the officials were afraid of losing their appointments. There were more engines at Shoeburyness. At high tide the sea came nearly up to the engines, and the effect of the sea air on the engines can be imagined. It was recommended that these engines, and other engines from other parts, should be transferred to some central place, where they could be scheduled and disposed of. The Shoeburyness engines were still there up to a month or two ago. Why has the Disposal Board not taken the ordinary course of preserving if they do not choose to sell these expensive engines, that are being reduced practically to scrap-iron?
In June, 1921, it was reported that there were 12,000,000 sand bags lying at Dagenham waiting to be sold. They were costing £1,500 a year in rental alone, although within 2. yards of the place where they were stacked there was Government free property where they could have been stacked for nothing. Although it was recommended that this vast number of stacks should be sold when they had a market value, they have been bought for pulp, and are being turned into the "Daily Mail" newspaper. I could give plenty more cases, but I am sure there are other hon. Members who, from their experience, can give others. I do appeal to my hon. Friend to report, if he cannot give us permission himself, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the feeling in the House, and to press him to give us an inquiry, which alone can satisfy, not only hon. Members in this House, but many people outside.

Mr. SHINWELL: The comprehensive and—if I may say so—outspoken speech which the hon. Baronet has just delivered renders my task a comparatively light one, although in so wide and comprehensive a question there are hound to have been omissions. I can, at least, dot the i's and cross the t's of the points to which he gave expression. It will be admitted in all quarters of the House that this is by no means a party question. This is a matter upon which all parties in the House can co-operate. In the demand which the hon. Baronet has made for a full and independent inquiry, there will be considerable sympathy of an active kind expressed by hon. Members. While I desire to reinforce the request of the hon. Baronet for such an inquiry, I ask
that the inquiry should go much further than merely into the transactions of the Disposal Board itself. I ask that such an inquiry should go so far as to ascertain what were the individual transactions of servants of the Disposal Board and of ex-employés of the Board. I regard this question as extremely important, and I feel sure that that view will be supported in this House, because it is desirable that the nation should be protected against waste and reckless expenditure, and that administration must be beyond reproach.
There are in this country to-day very grave and disquieting rumours amongst the public. The man in the street asks, in perhaps a vague way, without the submission of facts, questions relating to the transactions of the Disposal Board. It is true that his knowledge does not enable him to submit evidence of an authentic character, but there are men engaged in this business, men whose practice it is to purchase large quantities of surplus stores, and who were engaged in that kind of business long before the War, who themselves are complaining bitterly, and with reason, about the conduct of the Disposal Board. Surely, some consideration will be given by this House to complaints emanating from such a quarter. I submit that the hon. Baronet and those who, like myself, will support him in his demand for inquiry, are rendering a public service. It may be urged that during the War waste was bound to take place. With that view I should express sympathy, because, in a time of national crisis, it is extremely difficult to avoid waste and even reckless expenditure. But there was no excuse whatever after the War was ended. Having regard to the fact that there was quite justifiably a desire in the country for economy of the most drastic kind in the interests of the nation, the Disposal Board should have exercised much greater care than it did with regard to administration. When we refer to the Report for 1922 of the Public Accounts Committee, which I am sure will he regarded with due interest by hon. Members, the minutes of evidence which were taken in May, 1922, show that two very prominent officials of the Disposal Board were examined before the Committee, and reference was made to the following alleged conduct of the Board in this matter. I quote from a statement
made by a prominent member of the Disposal Board:
 As a result discrepancies were disclosed which proved in some instances that the results of previous stocktakings were untrustworthy.
The question was put to Sir Daniel Neylan, who, as is well-known, was a very trusted official of the Disposal Board:
 Who took the stocks? 
And he replied:
 Our officials at the Ministry.
I submit that that admission is in effect a very grave charge against the officials of this particular Department. I submit another case as indicating the extraordinary manner in which that Board conducted its business. It so happened that the Board proposed to dispose of a very large quantity of stock, and there was a gentleman with a speculative mind who approached the Department and offered to purchase. A subordinate official entered into an arrangement, without the consent of his superiors, to sell the surplus stock, and then it transpired that the would-be purchaser was not in a position to purchase because he had not the necessary finance. That, perhaps, is not unknown even in the most respected and trustworthy business circles, but look at the evidence that was given before the Committee. The question was asked by a member of the Committee, an hon. Member of this House in the last Parliament:
 What notice was taken of the conduct of the officer who had granted this contract without reporting the matter to you? 
The reply was:
 The officer who did that stated that he did it for the reason that he thought this man, being the son of a peer, was in such a position and so on that it was not necessary to refer to me as to his financial standing.
I do not want to hurt the feelings of hon. Members who may have some sympathy for impecunious peers or peers' sons, but I do submit that conduct of that kind ought not to be tolerated by a House which has a very great respect for business capacity.
11.0 P.M.
I pass on from the Public Accounts Committee, although with very great diffidence I submit that hon. Members would find ample material in the Report of that Committee to justify demanding an inquiry such as has been suggested. I am
going to submit one or two points to the hon. and gallant Member in a somewhat hesitant way because until I am assured that the Government are prepared to conduct an inquiry such as has been asked for I am not prepared to submit all the evidence which is in my possession. I am prepared on this occasion to indicate the purport of the evidence which will be submitted to an inquiry if it takes place. I ask the hon. and gallant Member two questions. First of all, whether he is aware that there was in the possession of the Disposal Board telephone material which had never been used, which cost £7,000, and which was sold by private treaty for the sum of £15. I can understand the amazement, perhaps not expressed amazement, but existing amazement, when I put a question of that kind. My submission to the hon. and gallant Member is: You hold your inquiry and the facts will be tabled. I pass on from that and leave it for Members to digest. I submit another question— whether the hon. and gallant Member is aware that the Department, or at all events, an official of the Department, purchased a large quantity of printed forms weighing 65. tons, valued at £27,000, which was never utilised by the Department or by any other Government Department, and which was eventually sent to the paper-makers to be pulped, a gross loss of £27,000 to the nation, and reflecting, I think I can say with absolute justification, a very sad condition of affairs so far as the Department is concerned. I ask the hon. and gallant Member whether he is aware of these alleged cases—facts. I put it no higher than that. He can reply, if he cares, at the proper moment.
Now I come to a matter about which I have submitted questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which was perhaps the primary reason -why I intervened in the discussion. I refer to the peculiar position of the Georgetown Munition Depot, which occupied a tract of ground more than one mile square. Perhaps there are hon. Members who know something of the district and of the depot itself who will support me in the statement I have just made. It is a fact—and here I do not ask questions of the hon. and gallant Member—that these buildings, at all events 75 per cent. of the buildings—I do not wish to exaggerate—have been disposed of by private treaty for a sum
which is not stated, but which is believed to be about £10,000, to a syndicate, through the medium of an ex-official of the Disposal Board. The transaction was conducted in a somewhat underhand way. I hasten to assure the hon. and gallant Member that I am not accusing him, or even his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of doing underhand things.
I am rather imputing them to the Disposal Board, and to the general administration of that Department. The transaction was conducted in, I say, an underhand way; but there is a more serious aspect of the question than that. Communications were received by the Disposal Board from contractors, asking if they would be permitted to tender. Their letters were not acknowledged until the Department informed those contractors that the buildings had been disposed of by private treaty in the manner I have already indicated. I submit that is a very serious state of affairs. But that is not all. It is alleged that the buildings would have fetched, at the very least, by public auction £50,000, and that is not an exaggerated estimate. They are tremendous buildings, and I am certain that the mere statement that I make will be quite sufficient for the purpose.
There was some lead electric cable lying at Georgetown, 19 miles in length, which was disposed of, not by public auction, but privately, to a firm in Glasgow—I do not care at the moment to mention the name—for the sum of £1,500. Every person associated with the business is bound to admit—I know that many contractors associated with the business have already stated it—that at the very least £5,000 would have been obtained for that material. I do not want to submit any further facts with regard to what happened at Georgetown, except to indicate the serious displeasure which has been manifested among contractors in Scotland at the action of the Department, and I think they have got a justifiable ground of complaint. They are in the business, and they naturally expect that, if the Government are disposing of surplus materials and stores and buildings by auction, the Government will continue to dispose of such materials and buildings by auction, and not permit ex-officials of the Department to use their influence and their undoubted knowledge
in order to assist their friends to undertake transactions of that kind.
Now I come to what is the most serious matter of all. I am going to ask the hon. and gallant Member if he is aware that a Report was prepared by an official of the Department, Mr. J. H. Beer, on the 7th February, 1920, at the request of the Board, on the transactions of the Disposal Board; that that Report was placed in the hands of Lord Inverforth, who was then Minister of Munitions, Sir Sigmund Dannreuther and Sir Daniel Neylana Report of a startling character, which was never made public, and which, I presume is still in the hands of the Department. I ask why this report was never made public? What was the purpose behind its concealment? Surely, if it was desirable to conduct an investigation into the transactions of the Board, it is equally desirable to record the facts in the interests of the nation. In support of my contention that such a report was submitted to the Department, I will read a, letter, which was sent by an official of the Disposal Board, while in the employment of the Department, to a certain official of the Board, sometime in 1921. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not give dates or names, but I am prepared to submit both dates and names and all the necessary and ancillary facts if the hon. and gallant Member will assure the House and myself that an inquiry will be held. That letter was sent relative to the Slough Depot, and Mr. J. H. Beer's report of the 7th of February, 1920. The letter is as follows:
In reply to your verbal request that I should let you have copies of the above Report (which you have already read when auditor in this Department) I have to say that the documents constituting the above Report and supplementary papers were handed me for personal custody [by a gentleman named] upon his quitting this Department on the 22nd instant. For the first time an opportunity has been afforded me of reading them, and of reading a copy (apparently) of the comments made by the Committee which sat on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th March, 1920, at Slough, to consider the Report. I cannot find anything in the Report or supplementary papers which would justify any additional action now in the interests of the public, having regard to the magnitude of other waste scandals of which we have read in the Press in the meantime.
It is probably true to say that had the Report been acted upon more fully early in.1920, certain additional criminal prosecu-
tions might have been sustained. It must be remembered that, in all likelihood, the Committee had in mind the difficulty of securing the necessary evidence to lead to convictions.
It is a gruesome story of indifference in those in administrative positions; of negligence and wrong to the detriment of the public funds; and to the ordinary standards of decent conduct. It allows of the inference that there was lack of administrative foresight and lack of adequate accounting methods at the initiation of the Slough Depot scheme.
Knowing what we do of the indifference of those in high authority to the proper conservation of public money; of the atmosphere of prodigality and waste to which they have become inured and to their adroitness when adverse criticism arises, of so representing the measure of official responsibility as not so much individual as spread over a number of persons in descending degrees, of fractional accountability, so as to make it next to impossible to attach a particular quantum of reproach to any individual—I do not see how the cause which you have at heart in common with other comparatively helpless officials could be benefited by the reopening of this sepulchre.
I should prefer to take the responsibility of sending you copies of these documents as you suggested only when it is fairly demonstrated that some really useful public service would be effected. I would be freed from regarding them as solely confidential and private by being so satisfied, and that the action which it was proposed to take was justified and was unlikely to be taken otherwise.
I would ask the House to note that this is sent from the office of the Disposal Board by a somewhat prominent official. I think the House will admit that it is very surprising, but, if the House had been regaled with statements regarding transactions of the Board, as I have been, they would not regard this as surprising at all. At all events, I submit that a prima facie ease has been made out for an independent inquiry. I think it is worth reiterating that this is not by any means a partisan statement. I am certainly not attacking the present Government because of something for which, presumably, the late Government are in some degree responsible. In the interests of the nation, in the interests of efficiency, in the interests of the House of Commons itself, which is, after all, always jealous of finance and expenditure, it is desirable that the Financial Secretary, if he cannot himself give the assurance, should convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government the urgency and desirability of insti-
tuting an inquiry, where the terms of reference will be of the widest and most comprehensive character, to enable us to plumb the depths of the transactions of the Disposal Board.

Sir EDWARD MANVILLE: I join with the hon. Member who has just spoken in saying that the complaint I have to make against the Disposal Board is not a complaint against the existing' Government, which, of course, was not responsible for the appointment of the Disposal Board or for the policy which guided its actions. My complaint is that the action of the Disposal Board is hammering perhaps, the last nail into the coffin of a whole industry, unless that policy is immediately reversed. May I for a moment draw the attention of the House to what happened in the early days of the automobile industry? The legislation which this House failed to pass a quarter of a century ago placed many of the countries in front of this country in a most important industry. It was many years before the mechanical genius of this country brought us to a level with those countries which had been in front of us. Happily, when the commercial motor vehicle was being developed there was no such handicap, and this country became beyond question pre-eminently the first in the design and manufacture of these commercial vehicles. A very satisfactory industry, giving much employment, had been established at the outbreak of war. Then, unfortunately for this industry, the whole aspect of affairs was altered. As the House is aware, all these factories were commandeered, and either continued in the manufacture of motor lorries or were put on to other work which the Ministry of Munitions thought they were better able to tackle in the interests of the country. That goodwill which we had achieved all over the world was lost, because we could not supply other countries, when the production was required by our own Government, and other countries, like the United States, were able to capture the markets, as they had a perfect right to do.
The industry realised the perilous state of affairs which had arisen, because even during, the progress of the War and as early as 1916, they commenced to formulate plans which were submitted to the various Government Departments concerned as to the method which should be adopted, in their opinion, for the disposal
of the vehicles after the War. The Departments included the War Office, the Ministry of Reconstruction, the Ministry of Munitions and the Board of Trade. Several practical schemes were put forward and were promised consideration, but the War terminated, and nothing was done in the way of the adoption of any scheme. Then individual manufacturers negotiated, first with the Ministry of Munitions and then with officials of the Disposal Board, for the purchase of vehicles of their particular make and between the Armistice and time when the Slough contract was entered into, they had actually purchased lorries to the value of at least £1,500,000 at prices—and this is an important point—which were relatively high. For example, one prominent firm bought 900 of its own vehicles back at an average cost of £380 and other manufacturers were proceeding on similar lines. They were endeavouring to preserve their own industry, and at the same time as the prices show, to give a really good return to the nation for these vehicles.
It might be thought, in such circumstances, that if the Disposal Board has any scheme in mind for the wholesale disposal of this material, they would at least take into their confidence the association representing the manufacturers and see what they could do. I believe something in the nature of a bombshell fell into the midst of the manufacturers when they learned that a contract for disposal had actually been entered into without a single one of them being taken into consultation. What was the result of the operations of the people to whom the disposal of the vehicles was entrusted under the Slough contract? They immediately slumped the price to a level at which it was impossible to imagine the vehicles being sold. What then was the position of the manufacturers who had even within three weeks of the Slough contract purchased from the Disposal Board some of their own vehicles? The firm to which I have referred as purchasing their vehicles at £380, bought no fewer than 200 of them three weeks before the Slough contract was entered into; at about that price, and within three weeks the Slough people were offering the same vehicles at a price of £72.
Ordinary business people dealing with each other would not have been guilty of
an action of that sort. I do not think anybody could, to use the common saying, have the conscience to sell a man an article for £380 with the knowledge that some uncontrolled people were going to sell the same article immediately afterwards for a fraction of that price. Of course, this manufacturer and many others who were in the same position had to cut their losses at once by selling all these vehicles, which they had bought at high prices from the Board, at the prices which were then quoted by Slough. Needless to say, this entirely destroyed the industry so far as the manufacture of new vehicles was concerned. It is true that at that time we were not faced with the threat of unemployment, but it may be safely estimated that the amount of skilled and unskilled labour which is taken in constructing a motor lorry of average size is equal to the employment of 100 men for a week; that is, of course, the complete manufacture. It will not be denied, I think, that the average dole being paid at present is not less than 20s. a head, and in that case every 100 men put out of employment in this way receive £100 at least per week.
What is the value which the Government is receiving for allowing these 100 men to be out a work? I do not know what they are receiving, and I am confident they do not know themselves what is their share of the spoils, but since the gross price of these vehicles is £72, it is certain that the Government share of that would not amount to more than half, probably a very great deal less, so that for £35 of realisation of these commodities, £100 in doles is being paid, altogether apart from the consideration that this industry is day by day being crushed to death and will be completely extinct before long. The actual employment to-day in factories making motor vehicles in this country is only 10 per cent. of what it was in the year 1920, and that, notwithstanding that the use of these vehicles has increased enormously since that date. The various manufacturers have tried to keep a stiff upper lip over this business and to keep their factories going, in the hops that this never-ending flow of secondhand vehicles at these prices may end and that the good time may come when they will be able to manufacture new vehicles,
but they cannot keep on doing that for ever. During the last two years, 12 of the leading factories have lost £2,500,000 amongst them, while four have had to go into liquidation, and I ask hon. Members to consider how long it will be before all the rest of these factories have also to go into liquidation, and the industry become completely extinct.
Let us look for a moment at the attitude taken up by other Governments under exactly similar circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a question the other day, said—and his authority is quite good enough for me—that the United States Government put a duty of 90 per cent, on the re-importation of their surplus motor vehicles back into that country. In other words, they made it impossible for anyone to buy one, and if they wanted a motor vehicle they had to buy a new one. What became of the large quantity of American vehicles? Of course, a large proportion of them were put into this country and dumped at prices as low as, or less than, those I have mentioned. I feel confident that it is the opinion of this House that a new industry such as this ought not to be crushed out of existence, and I hope the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take that view. It cannot be denied that transport of all kinds is one of the primary necessities of the country. Anything that can be manufactured for it ought to be encouraged and not made extinct, as looks likely in this particular case. It may, per haps, give hon. Members some idea of the new business which has been lost to industry when I point out that during the last year, ending last August, one complete year, there was an accession of no fewer than 20,000 licences for commercial motor vehicles. I trust my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary will represent these facts to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope, looking at the matter from the economic point of view and leaving sentiment altogether out of the question, that the Treasury will decide that not one single vehicle more shall be dealt with in the way the others have been, thereby putting this industry on the footing of other industries in which every effort is being made to promote more employment.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): ; The speech to which we have just listened
very vividly explains without many words of mine the main difficulties with which the Government has been confronted on questions with which the Disposal Board and the Liquidation Commission have dealt. It has been continually said by hon. Members inside and outside this House, in criticism of the Board and the Commission: "Why do you not get on with your work; cut your losses; get rid of all this mass of machinery which is only an aggravation to the country and a disappointment to those who have to deal with it." At the same time we are told by the hon. Member for Coventry (Sir E. Manville): "For goodness sake do not try to get rid of your obligations; hold on to the motor-lorries at Slough; do not put them on the market and realise what you can for them." Surely that is an extraordinary position to be adopted at the present moment? It is perfectly true that the members of the Disposal Board—which, by the way, has come to an end this evening—would be the first people to wish to be free from their obligations. For they have worked for years, "un-honoured and unsung," gratuitously, criticised for all their work which has been done ungrudgingly, particularly by men in a high position in the commercial life of this country, who have deliberately devoted their services, at the request of the State, to carry out their arduous and disappointing job. Therefore it is only fair to say that in criticising you will always find—as has been said to-night—thatif the price, so charged by those responsible for the management of the affairs of the Disposal Board is one that may seem to one section of the public too high, then the Board is attacked, and told that they are preventing the purchaser from the Board getting rid of what he has purchased in a free or reasonable market; while, on the other hand, if the price is too low they are told that they are defrauding the British taxpayer of his due. Both sides wish to have it both ways. I suggest, even as regards the cases that have been referred to—and with which I will deal in a moment—there are many other aspects, and it is just as well for hon. Members to recognise it. They have a bearing on these matters. First and foremost there is undoubtedly this, that the people of the country would require that the aftermath of the war, represented by these masses of surplus stocks, should
be got rid of as soon as possible, and at the best price that, under the circumstances of the day, could be, obtained. The business men who were on the Disposal Board were certainly not less capable of understanding what was a business price than many of the critics outside, who had not to contend with the difficulties with which the Board have been confronted. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) said that he would only give us specific instances of what, I venture to suggest, he meant to call scandals, if we promised in advance an inquiry. Surely he is putting the cart before the horse. We could not possibly, and no one could possibly, consent to an inquiry merely on the suggestion, "If you do grant us an inquiry, we will try and put before you what we may call evidence."

Mr. SHINWELL: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but, as a matter of fact, I did put to him some questions, and ask him if he was acquainted with the facts.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am not disputing that, and I will come to it in a moment. At the same time, the hon. Member does not controvert my statement that he said he would only give us the evidence, as he called it, on condition that we first promised an inquiry. As regards the question to which he has just referred, am I aware of certain facts and certain rumours? There are a great many people who call things facts nowadays which are not exactly facts, but which, when they are investigated, are found to be merely base rumours, and, therefore, it would be quite futile on my part to say, and, indeed, the hon. Member would be the last person to expect me to say, that I am acquainted with all the facts, to which he has not referred in detail, or cognisant of all the rumours, of which one has heard many, but, perhaps, not the particular ones to which he refers. I can, however, reply to one suggestion that he put forward, namely, that in regard to the position of Georgetown. The hon. Member seems to infer, as, indeed, he did in a Question in the House the other day, that there is something malignant underlying the transaction of the sale of the hutments at Georgetown, that there was some individual who, having inside knowledge, used his position as a former employé of the Disposal Board
to get some consideration over and above the terms which might have been granted to anyone else. I can assure the hon. Member that he is not correct. As a matter of fact these hutments at George town were valued, by a gentleman named Major Dunsmore, at £15,600, and they were also valued by another and quite independent gentleman named Jarvis, who valued them at almost identically the same amount, namely, £15,360.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman referring to the whole of the buildings at Georgetown, or simply to the huts occupied by persons employed there?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am alluding to the sale of the hutments to which the hon. Member referred, and to which he could only have referred, because he brought in the question of the identity of this former employé of the Disposal Board.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am sorry, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman must not put words into my mouth which were never there. I did not refer to hutments, but to the whole of the buildings at Georgetown.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The hon. Member referred to the supposed transaction of a former employé of the Disposal Board, and it is only as regards these hutments and their sale that the name and identity of this gentleman comes in at all. That is the only sale referred to, and, as I have said, Major Dunsmore valued them at £15,600 and Mr. Jarvis at £15,360. This other gentleman, who left the employ of the Disposal Board in July, 1920, but who was employed subsequently by them on various occasions to make valuations, also submitted his valuation, which was £15,000, or almost identically the same as the others. The fact that this gentleman had been employed by the Board weighed in the minds of the members of the Board, and, therefore, they carefully considered as a body whether they could accept this, in view of that fact. They absolutely and unanimously came to the decision that in so far as the valuation was identical and the price was the same, there could not be the slightest objection and there was no reason why they should not accept the tender offered on behalf of
someone else by this individual. There is no mystery about it. There can be no complaint of the transaction, and there can be no real inference or insinuation which could possibly be drawn as regards the actual transaction. It would be very unfair indeed to the candour and the honesty of those distinguished gentlemen who are members of the Disposal Board, who considered the matter personally and collectively because of the identity of the individual referred to.
Then I come to the charge made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant). I am a little sorry that he has made these charges, because I really think they are based upon a very unsure foundation. As regards this particular case, the complaint of Mr. Donald of Rownson, Drew and Clydesdale, when I heard the matter was to be raised, en-entirely uninfluenced by any Treasury official or anyone else, I took the papers and last Sunday read and re-read them three times, perhaps disposed almost by my naturally combative spirit to imagine that there would be some reality underneath the charges put forward. I searched and read as fairly as I could the whole history of these very difficult and complicated transactions, and I honestly came to the conclusion that there is not a shadow of basis or foundation for anything the hon. Member has said. There are two distinct charges, one that by the sale of what is called this mass of brass scrap the Disposal Board made a very bad transaction and lost the taxpayer and the Government a very large sum of money, estimated at £1,500,000: and there is another suggestion that the failure of the Disposal Board to meet its obligations as regards Mr. Donald, has resulted in the payment of compensation amounting to £50,000 to that gentleman or that firm I agree the compensation has not yet been paid. I will deal with that first. It is rather a curious position for Mr. Donald to adopt, because I am sure, as he says, he is actuated by the purest spirit of public patriotism. Mr. Donald, on behalf of this firm, entered into a contract with the Disposal Board in March, 1920, when prices were very high indeed, and the contract was for £5,000,000. It was a very definite contract. It was not a contract involving all kinds of supply services and stocks of every kind. It was definitely
articles of brass, and what was called in an item of the contract "Rownson's Encyclopædia." That was a well understood term involving certain things within the contract itself.

Sir J. REMNANT: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the schedule in the contract which was made and signed by the Disposal Board, if he reads Clause 5, practically any article of engineering use could be insisted upon to be sold under this contract.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The hon. Baronet will find out, if he looks at the original, it was not so devised. It distinctly said articles of brass—not scrap brass at all—and those 'things included in Rownson's Encyclopædia. It was not a general contract affecting all these matters of surplus stocks of engines, hutments, buildings, etc. It was a very definite and limited contract. It has been said that a sale of brass scrap took place. Why It was the Disposal Board itself that gave permission to these people, because they could not dispose of articles of brass for which there was no market, to convert them into brass scrap; and now the hon. Member makes it a charge against the Disposal Board, when they did this for the convenience of the contractor. He bases his charge as regards the financial loss upon the price of £35 a ton for brass scrap. He must know perfectly well that that is not a correct figure. For heavy brass scrap £35 a ton was the figure, but there was light brass scrap at £26 a ton, and there was irony brass scrap at £20 a, ton. He bases his argument as to the loss to the Exchequer on 150,000 tons at £35 a ton for all this brass scrap.

Sir J. REMNANT: It is a fact that 120 tons which the Disposal Board did hand over included that for which £35 a, ton was asked, good, bad or indifferent, heavy or otherwise.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The facts are not as my hon. Friend states. Mr. Donald disposed of only 102 tons of this scrap, and only seven tons were sold at £35 a ton. The accusation is that the 150,000 tons which were sold to the British Metal Corporation should have obtained £35 a ton, but if the hon. Member had gone a little more deeply into the matter he would know that he could not have got that price, and that Mr. Donald himself
in September, 1921, before the Disposal Board signed this contract with the British Metal Corporation, himself asked prices from his sub-contractor very much less than those to which reference has been made.

Sir WALTER PRESTON: Is the Financial Secretary aware that within three weeks they were selling at 100 per cent. profit; that what they bought at £3,000,000 has been sold for £6,000,000?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am afraid that does not help my argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] I would remind hon. Members that I am dealing with the accusation that the Disposal Board, by dealing with the British Metal Corporation, deliberately sacrificed £1,500,000. That is not a fact, as is proved by the very prices which Mr. Donald had to give to his sub-contractor to get rid of the brass scrap to which reference has been made. Therefore, it is not a fair criticism, nor is it a just statement, to say that by the sale to the British Metal Corporation this amount of money was lost. The hon. Member has referred to £24 and a few shillings as being the average price per ton. If he will look at the figures which we obtained, namely, the £3,650,000, which was paid by the British Metal Corporation for these 150,000 tons, he will find that it is almost identical with the average price to which he has made reference—£24 and a few shillings per ton. Therefore, there was no loss because the metal was handed over to the British Metal Corporation. The Disposal Board got exactly the same price that Mr. Donald could have got, no more and no less. I have tried to point out that the price received by the Disposal Board is almost identical with the price that Mr. Donald could have obtained.
Then there has been this reference to the £50,000 compensation. As I ventured to say a moment ago, that contract was entered into at a time when prices were very high, and the contract was for £5,000,000 Prices fell, and then what happened? The Disposal Board had quite genuinely and honestly entered into an agreement with a firm. They could not have expected that steady and very real fall in prices. What did they do? They had entered into a contract where the terms to Mr. Donald of this firm were not unfavourable. It is only fair to remind
the House that Mr. Donald of this firm was getting 2. per cent. sales commission and 16 per cent. for charges—18. per cent., while the average price under all other transactions has only been seven per cent. It was not altogether an unfavourable contract. Yet, when prices fell, what did the Disposal Board do? They said to Mr. Donald, of this firm, "Well, come on, we will try to adjust the position between ourselves. We have entered into a bad bargain. Prices have fallen. We could not anticipate that, but we are not going to turn round on you and shove you out now because the position is less favourable for us to-day." So they tried to arrive at terms with him in order that his expectation of his commission should not be diminished to such an extent that he and his firm might feel aggrieved. Was that a dishonourable thing to do? It was the only thing that an honourable body of people on behalf of the Government could have done. Now it is brought up against the Disposal Board to-day. It is said, "Why did you do this wickedness? You have involved the country in paying £50,000 compensation, and this is against the public interest." It is open to Mr. Donald, of course, if he is animated by a public spirit, not to claim that £50,000, and the Board and the Exchequer will be very glad to have that money; but it was a transaction that was done purely from a business point of view. The situation had altered, but they were not going to repudiate an agreement, even if they were representatives of the Government. Therefore it is not a fair criticism or accusation to be brought against the Disposal Board.
I do not know that it would be useful to delay the House much longer, or to say much more upon this vexed question. When for four years a Disposal Board of this character has been at work dealing with three million different cases, with sums of money amounting to over £670,000,000 involved, which has already been paid in as a result of these transactions, it would be folly and stupidity not to say that even the most keen-sighted business man on the Disposal Board might be found napping at a critical moment. It would be ridiculous to suggest that there were not probably faults and failings in some of these transactions. But when one has said that,
surely one can say something else—that it would be the height of imprudence to-day to suggest that a roving Commission of Inquiry should be set up, which would be incapable of delving into three million cases, which would sit for weary months and, perhaps, years. We should all be in our graves before it reported, if it were set up. It would be the height of imprudence, it would be impracticable, and I believe it would be quite the worst slur upon that very devoted work of those highly-skilled business men who have given up their time for four years. It would not only be so: it would be worse, because there is no need for it. If there were any great scandal, the Comptroller and Auditor-General can put forward his remarks. The Public Accounts Committee has the power and the right to investigate all these matters. When there is a clear issue the House of Commons will always act through the Public Accounts Committee. It would be invidious, impracticable, and unnecessary to establish such a roving Commission of Inquiry as is suggested. The matters of detail brought forward to-night are not substantiated in fact.

Mr. SHINWELL: Why was it that in the Georgetown case the matter was arranged by private bargain, and not by public auction?

Major BOYS-CARPENTER: Because it is often found, in affairs of this nature, that it is more convenient to adopt the system of private tender. Therefore, I hope that the House w ill not press the holding of such an inquiry, which would take an immense amount of time, involve considerable expenditure, and be a grave reflection upon these gentlemen who have given up their time and labour for four years. It would be a reflection upon their honesty and their business ability. I care not much about the reflection on their business ability, but I deprecate very much that these men, who gave up their time to serve the State, should have brought against them what would be regarded by many who have served on the Disposal Board as a personal charge. It would he regrettable, in these circumstances, if the House were to insist on such an inquiry, which would do no good, involve much expense, and bring more speedily to an end the opportunity of
securing public service unrewarded from many distinguished men.

Sir ARTHUR MARSHALL: I regret very much that the Financial Secretary, in dealing with the inquiry which has been suggested, has not had time or opportunity to reply to the criticisms and suggestions of the hon. Member for Coventry (Sir E. Manville) in regard to the disposal of heavy motor lorries by the Disposal Board. The hon. Member gave some telling instances, which I think merit the attention of this House, in regard to the extremely serious effects that have been caused by the way in which that great quantity of surplus motor wagons has been dealt with by the company. It is not only the interests of the companies that have been affected, but those of trade generally. I would appeal to the Financial Secretary to make representations to the proper quarter with regard to this question, but more particularly from the point of view of those people who are engaged in this heavy motor industry, which I think as much as, if not morn than, any other industry will be affected seriously by the continuance of this trade in these surplus motor wagons.
12 M.
Figures have been quoted by the hon. Member for Coventry, which show how very seriously the whole of the heavy motor industry has been affected. Now I would like to point out that the most serious effect in this respect is that the whole of those who use this type of motor traction in connection with their transport work have been induced by the weights of the vehicles offered to adopt very much heavier types of engines than need have been adopted if there had been a more convenient and more modern type of motor wagon than is now being used. It is impossible to estimate the extraordinary expense that is incurred in the upkeep of the roads by the use of these lorries, which are so much heavier than those required. When one thinks that it was possible to purchase from the Slough Trading Company a motor wagon at far below the cost of such wagons to-day, of the cost per mile of running those wagons, and of the wear and tear of the roads, taking a wide view we are making a very bad bargain in allowing these lorries to be used.
In my constituency there is a company which has been engaged in this industry,
and practically four-fifths of the men in that company have been deprived of employment almost entirely on account of the fact that there is no opportunity for the sale of the type of motor lorry they are manufacturing. What applies to my constituency applies in a very much greater degree to the constituency of the hon. Member for Coventry. Though it is very easy to say it now, these things ought to have been dealt with in a very much more drastic way than that in which they were. The American Government hasp a much more courageous method. They did not attempt to sell them, or at least not in their own country, and only at a price which, if they were brought over, would have made them more than if bought at home. [HON. MEMBERS "Protection! "] It may be protection. At any rate, it had this effect, that the American Government said they were not going to bring over a lot of unsuitable material which they could not use and throw it on the market of America quite regardless of economic laws. [HON. MEMBERS: "Protection! "] It may be very well for us to protect, our country against exceptional circumstances, and I am perfect free to admit, as a sound Free Trader, that I should be prepared to destroy surplus and damaged vehicles if imported into this country rather than flood the market with them. It is an extraordinary case with which we are dealing. Extraordinarily unsuitable heavy types of wagon, at the very moment when we need employment in ibis country, are being foisted on the market by artificial means, at absurd cost, and without regard to the character of the employment that is concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I make hon. Members a present of my conversion. The cost of the material in these wagons is, after all, a very small proportion. The highly-skilled work engaged on the production of these machines out of the raw material is a very high relative cost in the wagons in question.
It would be better if, instead of continuing this policy, the Government were to declare, quite firmly, that they were not going to dispose of any further surplus wagons to the Slough Trading Company. They would therefore restore to a proper economic basis of competition the companies that are engaged in this work. In this way, by first of all taking
off the roads the heavy wagons and putting on in their place 30 cwt. to 50 cwt. wagons, they would save an enormous cost to the taxpayer. In the second place, by getting rid of the unemployment, they would save a large sum of money in doles and would inevitably increase the prosperity and purchasing power of the working classes. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to make representations in the proper quarters, in order that this industry, which may truly be described at the present time as a distressed industry, may be restored to that very large prosperity which it enjoyed in the past by producing these excellent motor vehicles.

Sir CHARLES BARRIE: I will not detain the House long in telling them, what they may not know, that at the present moment I happen to be the Chairman of the unfortunate Disposal Board. Although a reply has been most adequately given from the Front Government Bench, I think the House might like to view for once the chief actor in this terrible drama. I confirm absolutely all that my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said about the unfortunate statement made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant). I tried to assure the hon. Baronet many times that the allegations he was about to bring before the House were entirely without foundation, but, at the same time, I told him I should be very glad indeed if he would take the opportunity of raising the matter on the Floor of the House. There have been so many things said with regard to the action of the Disposal Board, that I thought it right that an opportunity should be given, both to the attacker and to the defender, to state their cases on the Floor of the House.
The allegation in the case centres around the sale of brass. As I have already said, I confirm everything that the Financial Secretary has said to-night. There is no shadow of foundation for the allegation made by Mr. Donald that brass of the nature described was included in this contract. Nothing was further from the fact. Certain articles of brass were included in this contract, and for this reason. We found it was impossible to sell, and we allowed the contractors to
turn them into scrap brass and sell them as such. When the other quantity of brass came along, we made the contract, as we thought, in the interests of the State, with the British Metal Corporation. It is true that no tenders were asked, but it has never been the policy of the Disposal Board to invite tenders for every article that they have to sell. Sometimes, in business—as business men in the House know—it is convenient to make contracts with firms of substantial standing. We made a contract with the British Metal Corporation for £3,600,000, and when I tell the House that that total sum was paid in cash to the Disposal Board within six months of making the transaction, I think they will agree we did not make a very bad bargain.

Sir WALTER PRESTON: They made an enormous profit:

Sir G. BARRIE: I hope every contractor who has had to work with the Disposal Board has made a profit. People are not in business for the benefit of their health. If we had set out to make it impossible for them to make a profit at all, we should have sold nothing. What is the Disposal Board there for? Our business is to dispose, and surely a contractor is entitled to make a profit. I do not know how much they made.

Sir W. PRESTON: Nearly 100 per cent.

Sir C. BARRIE: That is not my concern. We made the best possible bargain we could at the time, and we considered it a good bargain. Further, with regard to Rownson, Drew and Clydesdale, it is an extraordinary thing that nothing was said about this brass contract with the British Metal Corporation by Mr. Donald's firm until almost a year after we made the contract with the British Metal Corporation. Why? Mr. Donald is a disgruntled contractor. He imagines he should have made much more out of the Disposal Board than they have allowed him to make, and therefore he, like many other contractors, squeals. He imagined that he had an omnibus contract with us, with which ho could deal in such a manner as to sell everything we possibly could give him. Indeed, at one time he suggested that, as we were selling about £230,000,000 worth per annum, he might get a contract for the balance, which would leave him the comfortable sum of
£11,000,000. That is the sort of contractor we have sometimes to deal with. Many times we had to call the firm in question, particularly in regard to their charges. They had a commission for selling; they also were allowed expenses. The Disposal Board have sold almost £700,000,000 worth of goods for the State, at something under 7 per cent. The cost in Mr. Donald's case has been something just under 18 per cent. Had we given Mr. Donald the contract to sell the brass, it would have been subject to such a like commission as I have suggested. Therefore, I ask the House whether they really think, on the whole, that the Disposal Board made such a very bad bargain?
The hon. Member for Holborn brought out some further points, which I know he brought forward in all sincerity. He suggested that new brass was transferred by the ton to the British Metal Corporation. That is not so. Very little new brass was transferred to that contract at all, but only sheets and such like articles that could not be sold as such. It is asserted the Trade was not consulted. The Trade was consulted. Brass screws were extracted from articles in which they were in order to make the brass come within the new category and to be sold at the highest price. Before we entered into this contract, we had sold £9,000,000 of brass. Up to that point I suggest that the Disposal Board did know something about brass, and the knowledge was not confined to Mr. Donald or the British Metal Corporation. These are just a few facts I thought the House might like to know.
When the Government wishes to get any matter conducted in which they thought they would like the services of business men, people are asked to join the various Boards, and on the Disposal Board I find various names which I am sure will give confidence to the House. On that Board, at the time of its inception by Lord Inverforth, whose name stands high in the City of London, we have Sir William Ellis, managing director of one of the largest steel works. Mr. Hitchens, the present deputy-chairman, and chairman of Cammell, Laird and Company, Sir Philip Dawson, Sir Sydney Henn, Sir William Beveridge, Sir Henry Maybury, now at the Ministry of Transport, and several others, in-
cluding a chartered accountant. Are these gentlemen who are likely to make bad contracts willingly and to defraud the country to the extent of £1,500,000,000? The hon. Member who lays this charge has picked out about two items in connection with the whole of our transactions, numbering about 3,000,000.

Sir J. REMNANT: I had not time for more.

Sir C. BARRIE: I dare say that the hon. Member could not have readied £700,000,000, even if he had had time. All the contracts could hardly have been bad. Is it fair, at a time like this, to raise a question of this sort? I do not object to criticism, but I like fair criticism, and I am sure that the House will agree that any business firm in the City of London who carried out 3,000,000 contracts to the extent of £700,000,000 was bound to have made one or two bad debts and one or two bad bargains. I do not say that every action of the Disposal Board has been good, but I do say that every member of the Board has been actuated by the greatest sincerity to do his best for the country. It must be remembered that this was not simply a case of selling articles that were at our doors. After the Armistice these stores were scattered all over the world, and they had to be collected before they could he sold. We shipped no less than 100,000 tons of stores from Mesopotamia to Bombay and Calcutta to sell them there. In one year alone we took 1,000,000 tons of stores out of store in order to sell them. At the same time, we have destroyed 1,500,000 tons of explosives. All these things had to go on at the same time as we were selling goods. I submit that that is a record of which any Board would be proud. I do not ask the House to throw any bouquets at the Board. We ask for no credit, for we have only done our simple duty by the State. But I do ask for fair criticism of our acts, which have been done with the best intentions.
In conclusion, let me add this: if this country in future is to get the benefit of the advice of business men in carrying out work of this kind, such business men will not object to fair criticism, but if unfair criticism is levelled at them when they are asked to take on jobs of this kind, I am quite sure that the day is
coming when very few business men will give their time to work of this sort, and I personally would very carefully consider the matter before I again tackled such a job, which has meant work night and day for four years. Simply because one or two contracts have not pleased disgruntled contractors the matter is raised on the Floor of this House without the whole of the case being taken into consideration.

Sir W. PRESTON: I am not a "disgruntled contractor." I never had a penny-piece from the Disposal Board, but I would ask this question: Did they make a contract with one firm in this country to buy 85,000 tons of steel scrap at £12 10s, a ton? Did they absolutely default in delivery, although they had thousands of tons of steel scrap at their back, and did the firm finally cancel the contract and the country lose £250,000, and was the scrap finally sold to another contractor, not at £12 10s. a ton, but at 45s.? That is one case on which I challenge the Board. How many similar cases are there of steel scrap, where contractors were willing to pay enormously high prices, but where this incompetent Board
missed the market, lost the trade, and lost this country millions?

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.

Ordered, That Major Cope be discharged from the Public Petitions Committee.

Ordered, That Mr. Clarry be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.